Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PETITION

Nurses (Pay)

Mr. D. Foot: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to present to this honourable House a Petition signed by 10,146 electors and residents in the Borough of Ipswich. The grievance to which the petitioners call attention is the inadequate salaries paid to nurses and other hospital staff, the fact that such salaries compare unfavourably with those paid in other comparable occupations, and the need to increase salary scales as a matter of urgency and to review the whole salary structure.
The Prayer of the Petition reads as follows:
Wherefore your Petitioners humbly pray that your honourable House will give further consideration to the salaries of nurses and other hospital workers and will find means of prevailing on Her Majesty's Government to reward them more adequately for the services which they render.

To lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

Independent Nuclear Deterrent

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Minister of Defence what is now the policy of Her Majesty's Government in regard to the control of the British nuclear deterrent and its rôle within the Western alliance.

The Minister of Defence (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): I would refer my hon. Friend to the replies I gave to my hon. Friends the Members for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Longden) and Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) on 25th July.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us are glad that he is as resolved as his predecessor to keep an independent deterrent on our side of the Atlantic? Will he ensure that everything possible is done to make even more widely known the terrible effectiveness of the V-bomber force and its necessity to British independence and international peace?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I think that it should be widely known that the V-bomber force in this country, of which we are deeply proud, plays a great rôle in preserving world peace.

Mr. Wade: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain what British nuclear deterrent is left over which Britain has independent control? Arising out of that, is it true, as reported in the Press, that Blue Water is to be abandoned?

Mr. Thorneycroft: On the question of the nuclear deterrent, the V-bomber force is a force over which we have complete control. I do not think one need go further than that.

Mr. Eden: Will my right hon. Friend take every opportunity to stress the technical efficiency of the V-bombec force? Does he agree that in relation to the total defence budget and also with regard to other less important items on which this country spends large sums of money this deterrent is secured at an extremely reasonable price indeed and gives very good value for money?

Mr. Thorneycroft: Perhaps it is sufficient to say that we have got the V-bomber force and we intend to keep it.

Mr. Mulley: While not questioning at all the technical efficiency of the force, because I think that it is technically very efficient, may I ask if the Minister's answers imply that the British Government are not participating in the N.A.T.O. discussions following the Athens Conference to work out a form of joint control within the Alliance?

Mr. Thorneycroft: It is a strategic deterrent, not a tactical one.

N.A.T.O. (Supreme Commander)

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Minister of Defence whether Her Majesty's Government, as a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation,


were consulted on President Kennedy's proposal that General Lyman Lemnitzer should succeed General Norstad as Supreme Commander, Allied Powers, Europe; what is the procedure for consultation on such appointments; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Thorneycroft: The appointment of a N.A.T.O. Supreme Commander requires the approval of the Governments represented on the North Atlantic Council. Her Majesty's Government were consulted about General Lemnitzer's nomination for the appointment of S.A.C.E.U.R.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that full consultation takes place between the allies before names are bandied about?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I am absolutely satisfied that Her Majesty's Government were consulted.

National Service Men (Compassionate Release)

Sir B. Janner: asked the Minister of Defence whether, in view of the success of the recruiting drive for the Armed Forces, he will now arrange for more applications by National Service men for release on compassionate grounds to be granted.

Mr. Thorneycroft: Applications for compassionate release will continue to be considered on their merits.

Sir B. Janner: Is the Minister aware that a large number of people, including some of my constituents, feel that there is very great hardship because their cases are not being considered on their merits? Surely, as recruiting is going better than the right hon. Gentleman anticipated, he can now ask those who are examining the cases to relax some of their difficult opposition to any application on compassionate grounds?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I cannot deal with individual cases without understanding the particular aspects of each one, and that, I think, would be more appropriate to the Service Ministers, but the cases will continue to be considered on their merits.

Nuclear Tests

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Defence if he will make a

statement on the official Anglo-American talks in London on the detection of underground test explosions.

Mr. Thorneycroft: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Prme Minister to Questions by the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) and the right hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson) on 17th July. I have nothing to add.

Mr. Allaun: Is it not a fact that recently a small underground test in France was detected by an American station 5,000 miles away? Further, since it is understood that both American and British scientists now agree that small tests underground can be detected by existing means, what is preventing acceptance of the proposals made by the neutral nations?

Mr. Thorneycroft: The fact that some advances have, happily, been made in the detection of underground tests, and in distinguishing them from earthquakes and other disturbances, is important, and its importance should not be under-rated, but it is not, of course, a complete solution to the problem; it is only part and not all.

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Minister of Defence what advice he has received from his scientific advisers regarding the availability of instruments which are able to detect all underground tests within a range of 1,400 miles.

Mr. Thorneycroft: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister explained on 17th July in reply to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, there have been certain improvements recently in detection techniques and in the methods of assessing the results. This is not the same thing as the invention of an instrument to detect underground events infallibly, or to distinguish all earthquakes from nuclear explosions.

Mr. Henderson: In view of reports in reputable newspapers that a considerable advance has been made in the recording of underground explosions, whether by earthquake or otherwise, is it not time that Her Majesty's Government gave the nation a little more information on the subject, more especially as the question


of on-site inspections appears to be the main difficulty in the way of securing a nuclear test ban agreement? Can we not have some information of the advances that have been made?

Mr. Thorneycroft: Very full statements have already been made on this subject. I do not think that I can really add to them, but can only repeat that they are important advances but not a complete solution of the problem.

Mr. Lubbock: Can the Minister say how many seismic events took place in the Soviet Union in 1961 about which there was any doubt whether or not they were of nuclear origin?

Mr. Thorneycroft: Certainly not without notice.

Thor Missiles

Mr. Gordon Walker: asked the Minister of Defence what is now the policy of Her Majesty's Government regarding the period for which Thor missiles are to be retained in this country.

Mr. Thorneycroft: We have decided that the arrangements under which Thor missiles are stationed in this country should be brought to an end during the course of next year.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that information will be very widely welcomed, at least on this side of the House, as it is something we have urged on the Government for a long time? We are very glad indeed that the Government have come to this conclusion.

United States Air Force Bases, United Kingdom

Mr. Gordon Walker: asked the Minister of Defence if he will make a statement on his recent discussions with the United States Government regarding a reappraisal of the military necessity for the United States strategic air force bases in this country.

Mr. Thorneycroft: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) on 26th July.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Would not the Minister agree that the new missiles that the Americans are now installing cover

all the targets that could be covered from bases in this country, bringing nearer, at any rate, the day when these American strategic bases will not be any longer necessary? Is he aware that whereas we on this side of the House are perfectly prepared to support American bases of this kind as long as they are necessary, we are now beginning to doubt whether this is any longer true?

Mr. Thorneycroft: The precise disposition of the nuclear strike force—how much by missiles and how much be aircraft—is a matter of military judgment at any particular time, but I am very glad to welcome the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that the party opposite fully supports American bases in this country.

Mr. Paget: Would the right hon. Gentleman say that these bases are becoming obsolete by reason of American rocket developments? Are not they— as well as, perhaps, the V-bomber bases —becoming obsolete because of Russian developments? It surely is the case that this island is no longer very useful as a deterrent base.

Mr. Thorneycroft: If the hon. and learned Gentleman is saying that we could dispense with all bases in this country for a nuclear strike, I think that the answer is clearly "No"; and that answer would be given whether in the United States or here.

Defence Expenditure

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Minister of Defence what new proposals he has for reducing defence expenditure.

Mr. Thorneycroft: My problem is to keep within bounds its tendency to rise.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister, in his desperate effort to keep expenditure within bounds, aware that defence expenditure has gone up by over £200 million since he resigned as Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he thought that defence expenditure was too high, and talked about it being one of the causes of a slithering from one crisis to another and bringing the value of the £ from 20s. to 12s.? Is he now to devote all


his energy to this matter, and can we rely on him to keep a very vigilant eye on defence expenditure?

Mr. Thorneycroft: The hon. Gentleman will know that there is nothing desperate about my activities. I am giving calm consideration to the subject.

Commander Maitland: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that his first duty is to see that the country is properly defended?

Mr. Thorneycroft: It is. I also have the duty to see that the money that is available for defence is spent to the best advantage.

Mr. Gordon Walker: In view of reports in The Times today, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the abandonment of Blue Water is among the measures of economy that he is considering?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I exclude no possibility from an examination of measures of economy.

Mr. Marten: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that he has no intention of giving up our independent nuclear deterrent, or of sharing it with other countries?

Mr. Thorneycroft: That is a different question, but I have already made it quite plain that we have a British nuclear deterrent, and we are keeping it.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: Meantime, can the Minister of Defence say when defence expenditure in this country was last reduced?

Mr. Thorneycroft: A very long time ago.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Minister of Defence what is now the United Kingdom's daily expenditure on defence in Germany.

Mr. Thorneycroft: About £287,000.

Mr. Hughes: Is not this a splendid opportunity for the Minister of Defence to wield the axe, and could he not be inspired by the speeches of the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer; that is, before he underwent this resurrection?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I draw my inspiration from many sources, not excluding

the hon. Member, but I do not think that withdrawal of our troops from Europe would make a great contribution to economy in defence costs.

N.A.T.O. (Nuclear Weapons)

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Minister of Defence what consultations there have been with General Norstad and his successor in regard to a nuclear policy for the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, in the light of the possession of independent nuclear weapons by the United Kingdom and France.

Mr. Thorneycroft: General Norstad's views on nuclear policy are well known to the North Atlantic Council. No doubt the Council will wish to know the views of his successor in due course.

Mr. Shinwell: Will the Minister of Defence resist any attempt to create a N.A.T.O. nuclear organisation? Is he aware that while I am somewhat sceptical of the value of what is called the independent nuclear deterrent, I would rather have that than have us place the whole of our nuclear defence in the hands of N.A.T.O., which would include various Continental countries about which I am very suspicious?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I will certainly bear the right hon. Gentleman's suggestions in mind.

Sir J. Duncan: Is the statement in the Question accurate—that France has an independent nuclear weapon?

Mr. Thorneycroft: She certainly has the capacity to make an independent nuclear weapon, and the knowledge of how to do so.

British Forces, Germany (Pay and Allowances)

Mr. Mulley: asked the Minister of Defence if he will arrange for British forces stationed in Berlin to receive the same overseas allowance as is paid to our forces stationed in the German Federal Republic.

Mr. Thorneycroft: No, Sir. Local overseas allowance is intended to compensate for essential extra expenditure incurred in living overseas as compared


with living in the United Kingdom. The cost of living in Berlin is no higher than in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Mulley: Will the Government give up this fiction that the troops in Berlin are living in exactly the same conditions as if they wore living in barracks in this country? Does not the right hon. Gentleman know that there is strong feeling among the troops there, particularly the Air Force, that when they are transferred from another part of Germany to Berlin their costs are the same and their responsibilities are greater yet Her Majesty's Government do not make any allowance for the difference?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I think that there are certain differences in these matters. For example, in Berlin they receive family rations and domestic services at concessional rates which they do not get in the rest of Germany.

Mr. Mulley: asked the Minister of Defence why Her Majesty's Government pays their forces in Berlin in an artificial currency: and if he will withdraw British Armed Forces vouchers.

Mr. Thorneycroft: The British Armed Forces Special Vouchers with which troops in Berlin are paid are not an artificial currency: they are fully negotiable within the limits defined on them. The arrangement has proved to be generally advantageous.

Mr. Mulley: Is the Minister aware that the other two Western occupying Powers—France and the United States— have abandoned the idea of this special currency for their troops and pay them in their own currencies? Is he aware that a great number of troops feel that there is some "fiddle" in this arrangement? If there are reasons why the right hon. Gentleman should continue the cost of providing these special vouchers, will he give the House a full and proper explanation of why the British Government feel that this expenditure is necessary?

Mr. Thorneycroft: My information is that it is generally regarded as fair and acceptable, but if the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) would like to have a word with me about it some time I should be only too pleased.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if what the men call

this "Mickey Mouse" currency in fact helps us? Is it an economy or would it cost more, or would it make no difference at all from our point of view, to maintain a special currency which we do not maintain in the rest of Germany?

Mr. Thorneycroft: It is not an unknown arrangement to pay troops who are in an operational or near-operational rô1e with currency of this type. If the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) has any difficulty in understanding this, I will willingly discuss the matter with him.

Service Departments (Permanent Buildings)

Mr. Hayman: asked the Minister of Defence what is his policy for co-ordination of expenditure by the three Service Departments on permanent buildings which may become redundant within a few years if the policies of Her Majesty's Government for progressive disarmament succeed.

Mr. Thorneycroft: The Services' building programmes are kept under constant review in relation to long-term needs. No useful purpose would be served by a special review at the present time in the light of discussions at the Geneva Disarmament Conference.

Mr. Hayman: Will the right hon. Gentleman take note of Question No. 20 on the Order Paper and the Answer which will be given to it, because there is a proposal to build a large number of houses for the Culdrose Airfield in the small Borough of Helston? As houses are an investment for a century, would it not be wise for them to be sited in places where they are likely to be absorbed by the civil population if we get disarmament within a reasonable period?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I will certainly have a look at that particular point. While I wish the disarmament conference every success, I do not think that we can look to it to solve all our housing problems in this way.

Defence Policy and Nuclear Strategy

Mr. Driberg: asked the Minister of Defence how closely the defence policy and nuclear strategy of Her Majesty's


Government are integrated with those of the United States' Administration and Strategic Air Force; and for how much longer Thor missiles and United States strategic bases are to be retained in this country.

Mr. Thorneycroft: Very closely. On the subject of the Thor missiles, I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I have just given to the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker).

Mr. Driberg: In view of the first part of that very informative Answer, I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman could say whether he has noted that passage in Mr. McNamara's recent speech which has been interpreted by most commentators, in Washington and elsewhere, as indicating a change from a second-strike to a first-strike nuclear strategy, whether Her Majesty's Government accept that interpretation, whether they were consulted about such an important change and whether they agreed to it?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I doubt whether the interpretation which the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) has put on the speech is very widely accepted, but I will consider all these matters. The question here is "Are we closely integrated in our discussions with the United States"?, and the answer is "Very closely indeed."

Mr. P. Williams: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that, although we are closely integrated, it is also true that we can operate independently and that this situation is more important now than it has been in recent years? Would he not also agree that it is absolutely vital to carry public opinion with Government policy on this matter? Can my right hon. Friend undertake that the Service Ministers and himself will do more at times, other than when presenting the Service Estimates, to explain defence policy in detail throughout the country?

Mr. Thorneycroft: Yes, Sir. I think that it is right that both aspects of this should be emphasised; that we have this independence to which my hon. Friend has referred and about which fee talks a great deal in the House, and that we also have the closest integration with an important ally.

Mr. M. Foot: Would not the Minister agree that the statement made by Mr. McNamara and the interpretation placed on it, as has been explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg), is of the highest importance? Will he, therefore, undertake to make a public statement, say, next week—even though the House may not be sitting—on the British Government's attitude to Mr. McNamara's statement and the implications which many have placed on it?

Mr. Thorneycroft: Mr. McNamara's statement was of the highest importance, but I doubt if all these glosses put on it are.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY

Employees, Portsmouth Dockyard (Pay)

Brigadier Clarke: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty how many men working in Portsmouth dockyard, at the latest convenient date, earned less than the national average of £15 12s. l0d.

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing): The "national average" figure of £15 12s. l0d. relates to the working week ending 13th April, 1962. In this week there were 3,670 adult male workpeople in Portsmouth dockyard who earned more, and 9,288 who earned less, than this figure. Any such figures are, of course, largely influenced by the amount of overtime worked. Nevertheless, the dockyard average was £14 8s. 10d., although this figure relates to a working week of half-an-hour less than the national average.

Brigadier Clarke: Do the average figures which my hon. Friend has quoted include the recant pay award which was published last week?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: No, they do not include the latest pay award which took effect on 9th July; of 6s. for the skilled, 5s. 6d for the semi-skilled and 5s. for the unskilled. These figures should be added to those I gave.

Artificers

Mr. Willis: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty how many are at present on the advancement rosters for


chief engine room artificer, chief mechanician, chief ordnance artificer, and chief electrical artificer, respectively.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: Forty-nine engine room artificers. There are at present no mechanicians, ordnance artificers or electrical artificers waiting on roster for advancement to chief.

Mr. Willis: In view of the apparently recurring difficulties experienced on this point in these technical branches, is it not time that the Admiralty really examined the rating structure again?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) knows that this matter has been continually examined and debated. It is important that we should do all we can to draw the attention of all ships and establishments to this deficiency. We have recently put out an A.F.O. emphasising the number of men whom we need to qualify for advancement, and I have also made arrangements for the Second Sea Lord to write a letter personally to the commanders-in-chief drawing their attention to the deficiencies which exist.

Mr. Willis: Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to see why these rosters cannot be kept full?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: We are doing that.

Mr. Willis: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty how many of Her Majesty's ships at present in commission do not carry their full complement of chief electrical artificers and electrical artificers.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: Nine, Sir. In addition forty-six, while having the correct numbers overall, carry senior electrical artificers or senior electrical mechanicians in lieu of chief electrical artificers or chief electrical mechanicians.

Mr. Willis: Does not this indicate that there is a shortage of electrical artificers and chief electrical artificers? What are the Government doing about it since, of course, this is related to the previous Question?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: The main remedy, I think, lies in an increased entry of artificer apprentices and a greater share of them going into the electrical specialisations. This we are undertaking

at the moment. The other remedies include the cross-training of other artificers so that there is more flexibility of employment. The recent introduction of a mechanician apprentice entry into the radio-electrical branch, announced last July, will help in this direction.

Naval Aircraft (Accident Prevention)

Mr. J. Wells: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware of the lower accident rate achieved in the United States Naval Air Service as a result of increased expenditure on safety measures; and if he will increase expenditure on accident prevention in order to reduce the number of accidents to naval aircraft.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: I am unable to say how far the lower accident rate in the United States Navy is attributable to any increased spending on flight safety. Comparisons with the United States Navy tend to be misleading owing to differences in the methods of classification. In the last eleven years the major accident rate in the Fleet Air Arm has been reduced per 10,000 hours from 24 down to 10. We are at present considering various ways of improving still further our flight safety.

Mr. Wells: Could my hon. Friend give some outline of the new steps he intends taking? Can he say why it is impossible to get a straight comparison in the number of accidents in a number of flying hours?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Consideration is being given to setting up a Flight Safety Centre to distribute flight safety information and to run flight safety courses. It is difficult to compare like with like, because the endurance of United States naval aircraft is greater than ours and one cannot, therefore, say that 10,000 hours of their flying time would represent the same number of deck landings. If one takes the major accident rates and compares them with the number of deck landings, our figures are favourable compared with theirs.

Recruits (Eyesight)

Captain Litchfield: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty if, in view of the large number of candidates rejected for


service in the Royal Navy through inability to satisfy the eyesight requirements, and the resultant loss of good men to the Service, the will authorise a review of these standards.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: Yes, Sir. These like all other naval entry standards are constantly under review and it has recently been decided to lower the eyesight standard for the junior electrical branch, all categories of the engineering branch and all artificer apprentices. Candidates for all these branches will now be permitted to wear glasses.

Captain Litchfield: While I agree that Lord Nelson did quite well with only one eye, may I ask my hon. Friend if he will be careful not to go too far in relaxing the standard in branches where two good eyes are essential, whether any other branches are to have the standard relaxed, and also whether recent rejects will be considered if they apply again?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Yes, Sir. We shall communicate with recent rejects to see if they wish to apply again. The question of extending relaxation in the other branches is being examined and I will bear in mind the point made by my hon. and gallant Friend about the need for good eyes in some branches. I have been trying for three-and-a-half years to get some relaxation here and I am delighted that at last we have done it.

Houses, Helston

Mr. Hayman: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether he will make a statement showing the number of houses built by the Admiralty within the Borough of Helston for naval personnel at Culdrose Airfield; what was their cost; how many such houses are proposed to be built; when they are to be built; and what will be their cost.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: The Admiralty has built 230 houses within the Borough of Helston for naval personnel at R.N. Air Station, Culdrose, at a cost of £580,000.
We plan to build a further 228 houses at a cost of about £600,000. We hope these will be started in about twelve months' time and completed in the spring of 1965.

Mr. Hayman: Will the Civil Lord take account of the fact that the Admiralty's first suggestion that some of these new houses, or the whole of them, should be built in Camborne—Redruth seemed a very sensible one? In view of the fact that these houses will be a century investment, that disarmament will come at some time—in our time we hope—that the population of Camborne—Redruth is five times that of Helston, and that recently his own Government decided to cut off the branch line to Helston, will he reconsider the proposition?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: We always wanted to build at Helston and we have re-examined this matter and think that it is now the right decision. I think that Cam-borne is a good deal further away than Culdrose and that if the 'branch line is not to be run the roads will be even more crowded and the difference in travelling time will be greater still.

Mr. G. R. Howard: Does my hon. Friend agree that it was the Minister of Housing and Local Government who in the first place suggested that the houses should be built at Camborne? Is he aware that in the winter it would mean half an hour's drive for personnel going to and from Culdrose whereas, from the present housing estate, it is only five minutes, and that in the summer it would mean anything between three-quarters of an hour and an hour's drive to get there?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I think that is a very good justification for building the houses at Helston.

Mr. Hayman: I beg to give notice that, as the answer is so unsatisfactory, I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

H.M.S. "Victorious" (Successor)

Mr. Wall: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty if he has yet decided on the requirements for a successor to H.M.S. "Victorious".

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: I am afraid I cannot usefully add very much to my reply of 28th February to the hon. Member. He will understand that there are various complex requirements to allow for, at least one of which first emerged in the 1962 Defence White


Paper: namely the aim of achieving a range of common aircraft with the Royal Air Force.

Mr. Wall: Can my hon. Friend at least say whether the design work for a carrier of about 50,000 tons referred to in last year's Defence White Paper is proceeding, and if it is proceeding satisfactorily what is the earliest time that we can expect such a ship to be laid down?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Design work is proceeding, but I cannot state without notice when a decision will be reached, because no decision has yet been taken about laying down the ship.

Mr. Willis: When is it proposed to take a decision about this? It has been on the boards now for a very long time and something should be done to approve or not approve.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: As with many other decisions in the defence sphere—there was a Question to my right hon. Friend earlier—perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to address his question to the Minister of Defence.

Commissioning Ceremony, Lossiemouth

Mr. Driberg: asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what religious service took place on the occasion of the commissioning at Lossiemouth of a naval aircraft designed for the delivery of hydrogen-bombs; to which denomination the chaplain who conducted this service belongs; if he will circulate in HANSARD the text of the form of service used; and by what authority this form of service was used on this occasion.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the commissioning ceremony of 801 Squadron at R.N. Air Station, Lossiemouth, which included a short religious service. The chaplains of the Church of England and the Church of Scotland took part, and no special authority was required. I am circulating the text of the service in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Driberg: While thanking the Civil Lord for that reply, may I ask him whether it occurred to any of those concerned that there was a certain incongruity about these proceedings?

Hon. Members: Why?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: No, I do not think that it did occur because I do not think there was any incongruity. As I said in my reply, this was in respect of the personnel of the squadron and I think that it is right to ask God's help for all those who play a gallant and dedicated part in deterring aggression and keeping the peace of this country.

Mr. Driberg: If this was confined to asking God's help for the personnel, most of us would agree, but if it was asking God's help for the ultimate object of projecting hydrogen bombs on a defenceless civil population, was there not a certain incongruity?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: As I made clear, this was directed to the personnel.

Following is the information:

ORDER OF SERVICE

After the playing of the National Anthem the Ship's Chaplain shall begin the Service with these words: —

BRETHEN, in the course of our duty we are set in the midst of many and great dangers, and we are gathered here today, at the beginning of this new enterprise to ask in all humility for the blessing of Almighty God upon this Squadron, and to seek His gracious and ready protection upon us who are called to serve in it. Let us therefore now join in asking far these things.

THE BLESSING

Chaplain: Our help is in the name of the Lord.
Answer: Who hath made heaven and earth.
Chaplain: The Lord be with you.
Answer: And with Thy Spirit.
Chaplain: Let us pray: —

In the name of God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit we humbly ask to bless this Squadron here assembled. May He watch over your going out and coming in; may He keep you from all evil and mischief and preserve you throughout all dangers to body and soul, so that in the end through all the changes and chances of this mortal life, you may come through His love and mercy to His eternal and everlasting kingdom. We ask this in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

THE DEDICATION

The Church of Scotland and Free Church Chaplain shall then say the following prayers of Dedication: —

In the name of GOD who Creates, Redeems and Strengthens, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit:

We Dedicate this Squadron

To the service of the Queen in the fellowship of the Royal Navy;

To the protection of her Realm and Commonwealth;

To the preservation of Peace throughout the World.

Let us pray:

O LORD GOD, when Thou givest to Thy servants to endeavour any great matter, grant us also to know that it is not the beginning, but the continuing of the same until it be thoroughly finished, which yieldeth the true glory, through Him that for the finishing of Thy work laid down His life, our Redeemer. Jesus Christ. Amen.

Our Father….

Here the Squadron Commanding Officer will read a short lesson.

Then shall be sung the hymn:

"HE WHO WOULD VALIANT BE".

The Service will conclude with the Blessing said by the Chaplain.

Unto God's most gracious mercy and protection we commit you. May the Lord bless you and keep you and make His face to shine upon you and be gracious unto you. May He lift up the light of His countenance upon you and give you peace, now and evermore. Amen.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Depot, Scunthorpe

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: asked the Secretary of State for War for what purposes his Department is using the former ordnance depot in Cottage Beck Road, Scunthorpe; what proposals he has received from the interested bodies concerned for its transfer and use as a sports centre for young people; and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. James Ramsden): This depot is surplus to Regular Army requirements. Part of the site will be used by the Territorial Army and the rest will be transferred to the General Post Office if terms are agreed. My right hon. Friend has not received any proposals for its use as a sports centre for young people.

Mr. Mallalieu: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether this has been transferred already to the Post Office? Is he aware that I was today informed at the headquarters of the Post Office that this was not the case? Is he further aware that the highest authorities on physical education in the Ministry of Education believe that this is a perfect building for a youth sports centre, and would it not be a tragedy to use it for storing Post Office material? Will the hon. Gentle-

man see that nothing is done until he has received the views of the Scunthorpe Borough Council, the local education authority and the county education authority, all of whom want this building transferred to the Borough of Scunthorpe for the use of the youth in the locality?

Mr. Ramsden: I am aware of the hon. and learned Gentleman's views and those of his constituents. It is part of our normal disposal procedure that surplus buildings have first to be offered to other Departments to see if they have need for them. The Post Office has indicated a need. The transfer to the G.P.O. is not finally setttled and if it does not go through we should gladly consider other proposals.

Mr. Mallalieu: Will the hon. Gentleman assure me that nothing final will be done until he has heard those views at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. Ramsden: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General whose Department has indicated its interest.

Trooper Walton

Mr. Short: asked the Secretary of State for War why Trooper Walton of Bovington Camp was placed under close arrest on 11th May; why the commanding officer did not communicate with Bensham General Hospital regarding the serious illness of his mother; and why no action was taken to grant compassionate leave until the intervention of the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central.

Mr. Ramsden: Trooper Walton was placed under close arrest because he had threatened his commanding officer that if he was not granted leave he would go absent. The commanding officer had been in close touch with the family doctor about the health of the soldier's mother. As soon as a diagnosis of serious illness was made, the hospital informed the unit, and it was as a result of their subsequent discussions, and not, with respect, as a result of the hon. Gentleman's intervention, that compassionate leave was granted to the soldier.

Mr. Short: While I am delighted that the outcome is that this young man has


been posted near to the hospital where his mother is a patient, may I ask whether it is not clear to the Minister that nothing happened until I intervened? Will the Minister agree that if a recruit, who has applied for compassionate leave because of the very severe illness of his mother, is being questioned by his commanding officer, and the latter says to him, "What will you do if I do not grant leave?", the commanding officer is really provoking him to say something for which he could be put under close arrest? Is that not exactly what happened in this case? Secondly, will the Minister say why this commanding officer did not follow the universal rule when he heard that this woman had gone into hospital of telephoning the hospital or the police to get to know the facts? He did not do that. Why not? Is it mot time that comparatively junior officers had these powers of arbitrary arrest withdrawn from them?

Mr. Ramsden: No, the hon. Gentleman really has got the background wrong. The background to the young man being put under close arrest is that the unit had been in close touch with him and with the family doctor about his mother's illness and his wife's illness, and nothing had transpired to show that either of these were serious. He had been generously treated in the matter of leave. Events took quite a different turn when we heard from the hospital that there had been a much graver diagnosis of his mother's illness. It was for this reason that he was, quite rightly, granted leave.

Mr. Short: Is not the Minister aware that when he says that events took a turn for the worse, what really occurred was that this young man's sister telephoned to the unit to say that her mother had been taken into hospital and that the commanding officer then told her to get a medical certificate, when leave would then be considered? Should not the commanding officer then have telephoned to the hospital? Why did he not do that?

Mr. Ramsden: No, Sir. I do not accept that the commanding officer did anything wrong. It is true that he heard from the sister, but he had no reason to suppose that this was not a further report about the conditions of illness of

which he was perfectly well aware already. He was quite right to ask for confirmation. It was while this was being sought that the hospital itself telephoned to the unit. Confirmation was received by that call, and leave was given at once.

National Service Men

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will state the latest number of National Service men given notice that they will have to serve an extra six months' conscription; and how many others he estimates will receive such notice.

Mr. Ramsden: 9,912 National Service Men have been warned that they will be retained for an extra six months. No more are required.

Mr. Allaun: While I am very glad to know that no more are required, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that many people feel that it is a double injustice that men should have to serve this extra six months in peace time, and that for the one in three of these men who are married it is even more unfair?

Mr. Ramsden: We have debated this matter on many occasions. All I can say is that we are constantly scrutinising the numbers we need, to make sure that men are not kept back unnecessarily. We are glad that it has been possible to cancel some of these notices. But nobody who is kept back should be under any illusion about the essential nature of the service that he is performing.

Mr. Ross: May I first congratulate the Minister on getting back to the figure he gave me on 27-th June of 9,912? It is rather strange that the figure he gave in answer to the same Question one month later was 9,121. Could the hon. Gentleman tell me, which is much more important, how many men have appealed against this decision and how many of these appeals have been heard?

Mr. Ramsden: In reply to the first part of the supplementary question, if the hon. Gentleman will study my right hon. Friend's answers he will see that these figures relate to different categories.

Mr. Ross: No, they do not.

Mr. Ramsden: That is the explanation of the discrepancy. To date 1,764 men have submitted appeals, of which 1,109 have been considered and 655 are awaiting examination. Of the appeals so far considered 198 men have been exempted on hardship grounds.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a certain sense of frustration among many of these men who are being kept on, because they have not the feeling that they are required to do a useful job of work and many of them have immediate and useful occupations to go to? Their further retention from their ordinary civil employment is imposing great hardship. Will the hon. Gentleman give an assaurance that every individual case is reviewed regularly to see if retention is really necessary in each case?

Mr. Ramsden: In general, we review categories, obviously, but if individual cases are represented to us—and I think I remember one from the hon. Gentleman—we do scrutinise them each on their merits.

Royal Small Arms Factory, Enfield

Mr. Albu: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the loss of earnings by some workers at the Royal Small Arms Factory, Enfield, consequent on transference from productive work to day-rate jobs; and what steps he is taking to provide more productive work for this factory.

Mr. Ramsden: The main rifle programme has been completed, and there is now less scope for piecework at this factory. My right hon. Friend regrets that there is at present no prospect of getting fresh production orders for the factory on a scale that would alleviate this situation.

Mr. Albu: First, may I thank the hon. Gentleman for receiving my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie) and myself on this matter, and may I ask him whether he has yet been able to give consideration to the gross injustice done to a small number of men whose earnings have been reduced from £3 to £4 a week because of this transference?

Mr. Ramsden: I have promised to write to the hon. Gentleman as soon as

I am ready to do so. Also, I discussed these matters with the union yesterday in the course of a routine meeting and I understand that the union is making representations in another direction. I would rather not be pressed to say more, but I will say to the hon. Gentleman that I will certainly consult with my colleagues to determine whether anything further can be done within the scope of existing legislation.

Gibraltar (War Department Employees)

Mr. Dugdale: asked the Secretary of State for War what priority is being given to Gibraltarians during the scaling-down operations announcd in the Defence White Paper for the Services there.

Mr. Ramsden: Gibraltarians employed by the War Department will be given priority for retention provided they are under 65 and able to do the job.

Mr. Dugdale: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I am extremely glad to hear this, but it is contrary to the information which appeared in the Press? I am delighted that the Government have evidently reconsidered the matter.

Durham and North-East (War Department Orders)

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Secretary of State for War what measures are being taken by his Department to place more orders for Army requirements in the County of Durham and the North-East.

Mr. Ramsden: The orders we place in a particular area must ultimately depend on the tenders submitted by manufacturers. But we do give special consideration to firms situated in development districts.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the Minister aware that I have addressed similar Questions to various Government Departments? As this matter of contracts comes within his own purview as Financial Secretary, will he go a little further than he has indicated and not wait until the tenders come in but ascertain whether it is possible, within the ambit of the North-East industrial centre, to place more orders in that area?

Mr. Ramsden: If as a result of tendering no firm in a development district would secure a substantial part of a contract, we offer the lowest tenderer in one of these districts a part of the contract at a price which would entail no extra cost to us. Further than that, if there are any firms which the hon. Gentleman knows whom he thinks we should consider for submitting tenders, I should be glad to hear from him and discuss any proposal the has in mind.

Mr. Shinwell: Does not the Financial Secretary realise that what I am suggesting fits in with the Government's general economic policy of promoting more work in a development district? This is a way out. Is it not possible to ascertain whether there are firms in the area ready to tender for these contracts?

Mr. Ramsden: We certainly do our best to do that, but in general the initiative comes, and I think it is right that it should come, from the firm.

Honest John Rockets

Mrs. Hart: asked the Secretary of State for War on how many occasions members of the public 'have been invited to press the button to fire Honest John rockets in mock demonstrations at Lark-hill, Wiltshire.

Mr. Ramsden: An Honest John rocket was fired at each of the School of Artillery's open days on 27th and 28th July this year by the owner of the souvenir programme with a winning number. One rocket was similarly fired by a member of the public at a demonstration last year.

Mrs. Hart: Is it not the case that on occasions schoolboys have been invited to fire this rocket? Does the hon. Gentleman really believe that an invitation to press the button as a reward for winning a raffle ticket is compatible with the pacific intentions of the British Government?

Mr. Ramsden: The point of these open days is to arouse public interest in the Services and to establish a means of liaison between the public and the Services. The preparation of the rocket for firing is part of the normal military training. Pressing the button is rather fun for the people who attend these open days.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether this apparatus was named after the Secretary of State for War?

Mrs. McLaughlin: Would my hon. Friend not agree that this is a much more satisfactory exercise for young people to undertake than many of those which they undertake with fireworks, which they are not prevented from doing, and which is much more dangerous?

Mr. Speaker: I think we are rather far away from fireworks.

B.A.O.R. (Sport Facilities)

Mr. Morris: asked the Secretary of State for War what facilities there are for sport in the British Army of the Rhine out of normal working hours.

Mr. Ramsden: All the normal sports are available in barracks and all ranks are encouraged to take part in them. Outside barracks there are facilities for sailing, canoeing, swimming, cycling and ski-ing.

Mr. Morris: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that difficulties arise in connection with sports equipment, in that soldiers finish their work or exercises at a certain hour and by the time they return to barracks and have had their evening meal the sports equipment storekeeper has gone off duty? Will he ensure that sports equipment is available at reasonable hours in B.A.O.R.?

Mr. Ramsden: Certainly I will look into the point which the hon. Gentleman has raised, and if there is anything that we can do we will do it. I should like to emphasise that it is the job of platoon commanders and. indeed, of every regimental officer to help and encourage their men to gat what sporting activity they can in their spare time.

Privates Edwards and Anderson

Mr. Paget: asked the Secretary of State for War from whom a complaint was received as to the conduct of Privates Edwards and Anderson; and what was the disturbance which they caused

Mr. Ramsden: It was my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport who complained that the conduct of these soldiers was disturbing him.

Mr. Paget: What did they do?

Mr. Speaker: Are we involved in any proceedings here? I should like to be sure about that.

Mr. Paget: No proceedings, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Ramsden: According to my right hon. Friend's statement, the soldiers marched past his compartment on the train making a great deal of noise and shouting, "Marples is in there". Also, they entered the compartment and woke him up.

Mr. Paget: As a consequence of this incident, two young soldiers were met by an escort, summarily arrested and marched to barracks. Is not this quite outrageous?

Mr. Ramsden: No, Sir. They were not arrested and marched to barracks. I believe that my right hon. Friend, who is, I think, the only ex-R.S.M. in the House, correctly appreciated the situation on the train After his action, he was able to complete his journey undisturbed. I believe that the commandant, who saw the men on their return to barracks and, with a caution, dismissed the charge, also correctly appreciated the situation.

Mr. Grimond: Although the commandant appears to have correctly appreciated the situation, was not this one of the most noncommital and complimentary remarks made about the Minister of Transport for some time, and was it really a breach of discipline to wake the right hon Gentleman up?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that that falls within the scope of the Minister's responsibility.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Drainage Machinery Depot, Lanark (Transfer)

Mrs. Hart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will reconsider his decision to transfer the Drainage Machinery Depot from Whitelees, Lanark, to Bishopbriggs.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Noble): No, Sir. The buildings which are held on a sub-

tenancy, and the site at Whitelees have never been very satisfactory, and some time ago it became evident that there was no reasonable alternative to finding new premises. These are being provided by the Ministry of Public Building and Works which is adapting surplus Government accommodation at Bishopbriggs for the purpose.

Mrs. Hart: Is not the Secretary of State aware that there is much profound dissatisfaction in the whole of my constituency about his decision? Further, is he aware that, apparently, no attempts were made by him or his Department to get the Lanark Town Council's agreement to extend the lease of the site and that less money might well have been spent on adapting the present premises than is involved in the removal from an area where there is, and is likely to be, severe unemployment?

Mr. Noble: I am advised that completely new buildings would be required and that the cost of erection would considerably exceed the expenditure on adaptations at Bishopbriggs. The people concerned in this matter were warned over a year ago that the move was to take place.

Betting Shops

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the estimated number of betting shops established in the last two years in Scotland.

Mr. Noble: I am collecting statements of betting office licences in force on 1st June, 1962. These will be laid before Parliament in the autumn. Meantime, I should not like to estimate what the total will prove to be.

Mr. Hamilton: Would it be accurate to say that many hundreds of betting shops have been established during the last two years or so and that the number employed in the betting industry in Scotland during the past ten years has increased by more than 65 per cent.? Is this an indication that the Scottish economy is getting going under the present Government?

Mr. Noble: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the number of licences is a matter for the licensing courts. As


regards employment, the hon. Gentleman will remember that the President of the Board of Trade in his speech two weeks ago gave figures of considerable increases in one or two other sections of our economy.

Mr. Hamilton: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how much building material and how many building workers are currently employed either on building new betting shops or on modernising existing buildings for the provision of these facilities?

Mr. Noble: That is a good deal beyond the scope of the Question.

Salmon Industry

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, in view of the need to reinvigorate the salmon industry in Scotland, what plans have been made by Her Majesty's Government regarding its further development.

Mr. Noble: The development of the salmon industry is primarily a matter for the owners and lessees of salmon fishings and for Salmon Fishery District Boards; but I shall, of course, take into account any suggestions which may be made by the Hunter Committee when it reports.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the old days in Scotland salmon used to be as common as brown trout and that many varying interests will benefit if we can once more recreate that situation? Further, is he aware that many people believe that a more vigorous policy against the seal menace and against the pollution of our rivers and in favour of more salmon hatcheries would do very much more good to the salmon industry than merely restricting inshore fishing?

Mr. Noble: I share my hon. Friend's hope for the future of the salmon industry in Scotland. I am sure that these points will come out when the Hunter Committee reports.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the most important step he could take for the purpose of improving salmon stocks in most of the Scottish rivers would be to get rid as soon as possible of the pollution which is still killing far more fish than all the illegal methods put together?

Mr. Noble: I agree with the right hon. Gentelman.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Does the Secretary of State realise that this industry has for genenations provided whole colonies of fishermen with a livelihood for themselves and their families and that the present absence of a constructive plan is imperilling all that? Will he be a little more constructive so as to give some hope for the workers in this industry?

Mr. Noble: I appreciate what the hon. and learned Gentleman says. It was for that reason that we brought in the Orders to prevent drift netting for salmon. I am sure that any further constructive ideas will be considered when the Hunter Committee reports.

Forestry Commission (Land)

Mr. Brewis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is now the total area of land held by the Forestry Commission in Scotland; how much of this is classified as agricultural and grazing land not to be planted; how much is unplantable and miscellaneous; and how much land has been sold since 30th September, 1961.

Mr. Noble: At 30th June this year, the Forestry Commission held 1,475,000 acres in Scotland; 413,000 acres of this area were agricultural and grazing land; and 264,000 acres were unplantable and miscellaneous. Between 30th September, 1961, and 30th June, 1962, 5,000 acres were sold, and at the latter date the sales of a further 26,000 acres were being negotiated.

Mr. Brewis: I am glad that the Commission is this year selling some of its land, but will not my right hon. Friend agree that, if the Forestry Commission's main job is to plant trees, it should sell as much as it can of the land which it does not intend to plant in order to acquire land which it does intend to plant?

Mr. Noble: I agree with my hon. Friend, but I am sure that he appreciates that a great deal of this land is on the extreme tops of hills, being land which can neither be planted nor easily used.

Mr. Hoy: Is not one thing which is restricting the Forestry Commission


from expanding its work the lack of suitable land for planting? What steps is the Secretary of State taking to make it possible for the Commission to get land on which it can extend its work?

Mr. Noble: I think that the use of our hill and marginal land for forestry and agriculture is of extreme importance, and I am looking into this matter very carefully to see how the balance can best be improved.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: As the reserve of planting land is a very important part of long-term forestry plans, would it be possible to consider the acquisition of planting land as part of the five-yearly review of long-term policy for forestry which, I think, is about due now?

Mr. Noble: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, in answer to another Question today, will be announcing the appointment of a working party of officials to carry out this stage of the review of forestry policy in Great Britain foreshadowed by his predecessor four years ago in the statement he then made on the subject.

Probation Service (Negotiating Body)

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will take immediate steps to implement the recommendation, contained in paragraph 349 of chapter 12 of the Departmental Committee Report on the Probation Service, regarding consultation with the interested parties with a view to the establishment of a sole negotiating body for Great Britain.

Mr. Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he proposes to implement the recommendation of the Morison Report relating to the establishment of a single negotiating body for probation officers.

Mr. Noble: I intend in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department to ask the organisations concerned to consider this question. But I have, in the first place, referred the recommendations of the Committee on pay and conditions of service to the existing negotiating machinery. This seems right in view of the time which would necessarily be

involved in any reorganisation of the machinery.

Mr. Hamilton: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise the urgency of this problem? Why the delay in implementating a relatively simple proposition of this kind? Does not he recognise that the probation officers in Scotland have an even greater grievance than their counterparts in England in that they will lose money by the delay in implementing proposals on any pay increase which is given and that the 2½ per cent. is miserable enough without adding this insult to the injury already suffered?

Mr. Noble: I think that if I had taken any action other than to give it to the existing negotiating machinery the delay would have been much greater.

Mr. Ross: We have been given no indication as to when the discussions will take place. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when they will take place and how soon after that he will introduce the necessary legislation in order to put this matter right?

Mr. Noble: I understand that the negotiating committee has met once already and has not made any recommendation to me because it has not agreed. As soon as it does and if it makes a recommendation to me, I will deal with it as quickly as I can.

Mr. C. Royle: Will the Secretary of State say what use it is to refer this to the joint negotiating committee when in England the committee's recommendation has been turned down by the Government?

Mr. Noble: Because if we tried to set up any alternative system and had to go through the problem of getting the bodies concerned to agree on a quite new system we should not even have got started.

MALAYSIA (FEDERATION)

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Duncan Sandys): With permission, I would like to make a statement about the proposed Federation of Malaysia.
The British and Malayan Governments have received and studied the Report of the Commission under the chairmanship of Lord Cobbold which visited North Borneo and Sarawak earlier this year to ascertain the views of the inhabitants on the proposal to create a Federation of Malaysia embracing Malaya, Singapore, Sarawak, North Borneo and Brunei. The Report is being published today and is now avalable in the Vote Office.
The two Governments are most grateful to the Commission for its valuable Report and have accepted almost all the recommendations on which the Commission was unanimous. The two Governments have noted, in particular, that the Commission was unanimously agreed that a Federation of Malaysia is in the best interests of North Borneo and Sarawak and that an early decision in principle should be reached.
In the light of this Report and of the agreement reached between the Government of Malaya and the Government of Singapore, the British and Malayan Governments have now decided in principle that, subject to the necessary legislation, the proposed Federation of Malaysia should be brought into being by 31st August, 1963.
To give effect to this decision, the two Governments intend to conclude, within the next six months, a formal agreement which, among other things, will provide for:
first, the transfer of sovereignty in North Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore by 31st August, 1963;
secondly, provisions governing the relationship between Singapore and the new Federation, as agreed between the Governments of Malaya and Singapore;
thirdly, defence arrangements as set out in the joint statement by the British and Malayan Governments dated 22nd November, 1961; and
fourthly, detailed constitutional arrangements, including safeguards for the special interests of North Borneo and Sarawak, to be drawn up after consultation with the Legislatures of the two territories.
These safeguards will cover such matters as religious freedom, education,

representation in the Federal Parliament, the position of the indigenous races, control of immigration, citizenship and the State constitutions.
In order that the introduction of the new Federal system may be effected as smoothly as possible and with the least disturbance to existing administrative arrangements, there will be, after the transfer of sovereignty, a transition period, during which a number of the Federal constitutional powers will be delegated temporarily to the State Governments.
An Inter-Governmental Committee will be established as soon as possible, on which the British, Malayan, North Borneo and Sarawak Governments will be represented. Its task will be to work out the future constitutional arrangements and the form of the necessary safeguards for the two territories.
The Minister of State for the Colonies, Lord Lansdowne, who will be the Chairman of this Committee, and the Deputy Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya, Tun Abdul Razak, will proceed shortly to Sarawak and North Borneo to conduct discussions.
In order to maintain the efficiency of the administration, the British and Malayan Governments are agreed on the importance of retaining the services of as many of the expatriate officials as possible. The Minister of State will discuss with the Governments of the territories and with the staff associations how this best can be done.
The British and Malayan Governments have informed the Sultan of Brunei of the agreement they have reached and have made it clear that they would welcome the inclusion of the State of Brunei in the new Federation.

Mr. Healey: My right hon. and hon. Friends welcome the conclusion of an agreement to set up a federation which I think the great majority of hon. Members on both sides believe will be in the interests of the inhabitants of all the territories concerned. However, experience has taught us to be a little cautious about proposals for federation in Commonwealth and Colonial Territories. Will the right hon. Gentleman enlighten us on three particular issues referred to in his account of the agreement?
First, does the description of the agreement as being "in principle" mean that both parties to it are free to withdraw from it if they are dissatisfied with the course of negotiations before the Federation is actually set up? Secondly, is it the case that the Sultanate of Brunei is totally free to decide whether to join the Federation and that the Tunku of Malaya has decided that the Federation shall go forward whatever decision is taken by the Government of Brunei? Finally, is it intended that expatriate civil servants shall continue to administer the territories concerned until the end of the transitional period under the sovereignty of the local administration?

Mr. Sandys: First, when we say that the agreement has been decided "in principle", we intend that this shall, in fact, take place, but, as I made clear in my statement, before the process is complete, we have got to conclude a formal agreement which will set out all the various points which have been under discussion and which will be further discussed with the Legislatures of the two territories. Naturally, if we fail to reach agreement on what the treaty shall contain, which, I think, is extremely unlikely, it will break down. But, in view of the wide measure of agreement which we have already reached, I think that that is a most unlikely eventuality.
Secondly, the Sultan of Brunei has already declared publicly that he is in favour of the creation of the new Federation. I therefore think it unlikely that the issue raised by the hon. Gentleman will arise.
Thirdly, in regard to the transition period, it is the hope and wish—I I thought that I had made this reasonably clear in my statement—that as many as possible of the expatriate officials shall continue to undertake the administration of the territories for as long as possible.

Sir J. Barlow: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. While we all agree that this new idea of a greater Malaysia is a good thing, does he realise that the people of North Borneo and Sarawak are not universally in favour of this new proposal? Will my right hon.

Friend take great care to ensure that there are proper safeguards for these two peoples, who are not so far advanced as those of Singapore and Malaya?

Mr. Sandys: The Commission, in its Report, which my hon. Friend will see, came to the conclusion that, provided adequate safeguards were secured, the majority of the people of these two territories are in favour of the proposed Federation. We recognise, of course, that the securing of proper safeguards to meet their special interests is of cardinal importance. That has been the major topic which we have been discussing during the past ten days with Malayan Ministers in London, and we shall continue to discuss the matter in further detail through the medium of the Inter-Governmental Committee to which I referred in my statement.

Mr. Grimond: In welcoming the Minister's statement, may I ask him whether any of the unanimous recommendations of the Cobbold Commission Which have not been accepted are major recommendations? Can he give the House any information on this point? Secondly, is the date of 31st August, 1963, a firm date? I take it that if all the preliminaries are concluded satisfactorily, that is a firm date for independence and federation.

Mr. Sandys: It would not be a good thing for me to try to summarise the points on which the Commission was not agreed. I would hope that the right hon. Gentleman will study that for himself.
I have stated that we have agreed in principle that the new Federation should be brought into being by 31st August, 1963; that is to say, a date not later than 31st August, 1963.

Sir K. Pickthorn: Can my right hon. Friend assure us that any hopes placed in continued service by expatriates will not be endangered by their having any reason whatever themselves to lose confidence in their careers and in their treatment?

Mr. Sandys: That, of course, will be our intention in the talks which we are proposing to have with the staff associations in the two territories.

Mr. Creech Jones: Having had some responsibility for the separation of


Singapore from Malaya and the inclusion of Sarawak in the Commonwealth, I should like to express my sincere congratulations to the Minister and to the Prime Ministers of Malaya and Singapore on the discussions which have taken place and my hope for the success of these arrangements in the future. I would only inform the Secretary of State, if I may, that this is a stage in the consummation of a policy which some of us ardently desired in the early days after the war.

Mr. Turner: Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that in the consultations that will take place in North Borneo and Sarawak, in addition to the Legislatures outside bodies will also be consulted about the safeguards?

Mr. Sandys: Yes, Sir. I have no doubt that the Inter-Governmental Committee will exercise wide discretion in deciding with whom it is appropriate to have consultations. The Cobbold Commission has, however, been over the whole of this ground and has consulted a whole variety of bodies in the two territories. Therefore, our primary task now is to consult the Legislatures of the two territories concerned.

Mr. G. Thomas: Will the inter-Governmental discussions on religious freedom in Sarawak ultimately be referred to this House in view of the deep anxiety which, as the Secretary of State will

know, has been expressed by Christian communities in Sarawak at the prospect of an Islamic State?

Mr. Sandys: My belief is that when this matter is fully discussed with the peoples concerned, they will be satisfied—certainly, we want to be absolutely sure on this point—that there will be complete religious freedom in the two territories after the creation of the new Federation.

Sir C. Osborne: Will there be an opportunity to discuss the Whole matter in this House before a final decision is taken? Secondly, did I understand my right hon. Friend correctly to say that one of the items was control of immigration? What degree of control will be exercised and who asked for control of immigration—the Malayan Government or the British Government?

Mr. Sandys: The control of immigration was one of the safeguards which was vary much wanted by the peoples of the two territories. I think that they want a control of immigration much greater, perhaps, than this House would have approved in the discussion of a Bill earlier this Session. They are afraid, in particular, of large-scale immigration and land settlement which might affect the character and balance of the country.
As to a debate in this House, before the process can be completed legislation will, of course, be required.

ADJOURNMENT (SUMMER)

3.45 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod): I beg to move,
That this House at its rising on Friday, do adjourn till Thursday, 25th October, at Eleven o'clock.
I think that it would be convenient if I followed the usual course of listening to any comment that hon. Members will wish to make and replying at the end of the debate. Therefore, I will simply make one or two purely factual points and reply to one particular point which was raised with me yesterday by the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shin-well).
The Motion suggests that the Recess should be of 82 clear days. Looking back over recent years, that is about the average period. Secondly, there is no need for what is called a spill-over part-Session for parliamentary reasons, so that if the House passes the Motion these dates will be altered only if the House if recalled. The House will be aware of Standing Order No. 112, with which hon. Members are familiar in discussions of this kind and which I will not read at this stage.
The only other point which I should like to make is to reply, as I promised yesterday, to the right hon. Member for Easington, who asked whether, before Parliament met again, we proposed to present proposals relating to the purchase of the Leonardo da Vinci cartoon, which was announced yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. The position is that the Civil Contingencies Fund will be used for the purpose. It has been used repeatedly since the war, It was used in 1960 for a similar purpose and was used in April, 1961, for the purchase of the two Renoirs. In due course, a Supplementary Estimate will be put before the House. It will be taken with the ordinary batch of Supplementary Estimates on the next occasion, which, presumably, will be in February.
The authority for using the Civil Contingencies Fund, which has been used on similar occasions in each of the last two years, is the Miscellaneous Financial Provisions Act, 1955, when Parliament specifically discussed and

endorsed the need for such a fund. Therefore, the answer to the right hon. Gentleman is that the Civil Contingencies Fund will be used, that it is common form for it to be used in this way and that in due course a Supplementary Estimate will come before the House.

3.49 p.m.

Mr. George Brown: We have an important debate ahead of us to which we want to give time—on the Common Market—but before we part with the Motion I wish to put one or two points to the Leader of the House, because upon his answers to them depends whether we can approve the Motion in the form in which it appears.
My first point is obviously the one to which the right hon. Gentleman devoted some of his remarks at the beginning, concerning a possible recall of Parliament. When we have had the Common Market debate today, which I believe to be urgent and important, we will, nevertheless, be in the position that vital negotiations are going on in Brussels of which, in the very nature of things, we can today be given no inkling and certainly no final answer.
That being so, the Prime Ministers' Conference would, in the ordinary way, be meeting—in early September, I think—and some far-reaching arrangements might well be entered into. Therefore, I should like to ask the Leader of the House to give us an assurance that, quite apart from whether the Government themselves wish to make representations to you, Mr. Speaker, that the House should be recalled earlier than the date set out in the Motion, if the representations are made to them from other quarters of the House, and notably, of course, from the Opposition benches, the Government will, on this occasion, not hesitate to make representations to you, Mr. Speaker, that we should meet again in advance of 25th October.
I come to the second point, though I believe that this has been answered; but I should like to make sure I have understood the answer. From time to time public statements will be made by the Lord Privy Seal about the progress of the negotiations. As we shall not be here to raise them, or for the statements to be made here, will the Leader of the House confirm that the Government will issue those statements in the form


of a White Paper, or Papers, so that Members, though they are not sitting in their places, nevertheless will have the parliamentary facilities for knowing what is going on?
Thirdly, if we are recalled, then, I understand, the rules governing our proceedings will prevent Oral Questions from being taken on those days. Written Questions, I gather from what was said yesterday, are in order, but, of course, there is a world of difference, as we all know, between a Question which gets a Written Answer, other than an inspired Question, and a Question which is put down in order to bring a Minister to that Box. What I want to impress upon the Leader of the House is that if we do come back it will be tremendously important that Ministers are willing to make statements on all issues on which otherwise there would have been Questions. We have certain opportunities in that respect, but they are not Question opportunities and we must have some co-operation from Ministers on this matter.
There are two other questions I want to raise, one very briefly, and one of outstanding, urgent importance. The one I want to refer to briefly is probation officers' salaries. I am aware that an hon. Member, on the Adjournment tonight, proposes, if he is successful, to raise this subject, but we are still left with the fact that a proper debate, occupying some time, in which a number of hon. Member might have been able to seek to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, was prevented the other morning by a sad lapse from grace in accordance with the previous bad habits of the Chief Patronage Secretary. I want to ask that the Government shall consider, since this is a very important matter, whether, if we do come back, quite apart from the short discussion there may be tonight, there should be provided an opportunity then for an effective debate on this issue which is of tremendous importance to a number of our most important citizens who are doing a first-class job and who believe they are being very badly treated indeed.
But the most important issue before us now is unquestionably the events which have happened over the last week or so, culminating in the events at Ridley Road, Dalston, last night, and repeating

events which happened earlier in Trafalgar Square and are now threatened at Birmingham and at other places. This, it seems to me, is a moment when the House of Commons must surely stand and consider recent history. We have all walked this road before—totali-tarians, Fascists, setting out to hold meetings, exercising what they claim are the rights of us all to free speech, but they set out to hold them, for the most part, in places where the only possible purpose is the maximum provocation, by insulting people, and decent people at that, in the places where they are living peaceably and quietly.
There was no purpose in going to Ridley Road last night, any more than there was in going to Cable Street when I was young and took part in the battles, or in going to Green Street, Bethnal Green, or elsewhere—no purpose other than to insult some of Her Majesty's fellow citizens and ours just because of their race and religion. It seems to us who put all our faith and trust in free speech that people are setting out to use it to destroy it, and that really is not good enough.
I am well aware, Mr. Speaker, that I cannot trespass on your kindness in this debate by going into the merits of the issue, but I do feel, and I am sure that most Members of the House feel, an extreme sense of shame that, after all that happened in the 1930s, and even more, the casualties which occurred from 1939 to 1945, we should be made to walk this road again. We have no opportunity to debate this today, of course; we have no opportunity to debate it before we rise, under the proposal of the Leader of the House. We have had a Bill, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway), and we shall Shortly, I gather, be asked to hear—

Sir Kenneth Pickthorn: On a point of order. The right hon. Gentleman has just announced his awareness that he cannot trespass too far. I am not myself exactly aware how far any of the nest of us will be in order in commenting upon what the has said—

Mr. A. Woodburn: Leave it to Mr. Speaker.

Sir K. Pickthorn: I am leaving it to Mr. Speaker. I am putting a specific question to Mr. Speaker. I should be grateful, Mr. Speaker, if we could have your guidance on that.

Mr. Speaker: It is always very difficult and it nearly always, one sees if one looks at the record, results in the Chair's talking almost as much as other hon. Members on these occasions. What is in order is what is relevant to the issue before the House, which is whether we should adjourn on Friday and come back on 25th October. I do not myself take the view that the right hon. Gentleman is trespassing on my kindness in any way yet. But there is a line: it is a matter of degree, of not going into the merits of issues and debating them, as opposed to considering them in relation to the Question before the House.

Mr. Brown: I am coming immediately to the point which affects the Motion. We have had one Bill. We are to hear shortly a proposal that we should have another Bill introduced, but that will not now give us an opportunity to debate the matter.
I do not want to suggest, in order that we may have time for such a debate, that we should not agree to the Motion, but I do think that at least the Leader of the House should give us some assonances. Clearly, we cannot leave this issue for long undebated. Therefore, I want to ask the Leader of the House to help us make up our minds whether we should let the Motion go in this form.
Tomorrow there are some Oral Questions on the Paper. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) has one, I have one, there may well be others. In the ordinary way they would not—or might not—be reached. I would ask the Leader of the House whether he would arrange with the Home Secretary to seek your leave, Mr. Speaker, to answer those Questions tomorrow at the end of Questions if they should not be reached. That would at least give us a staement of the Government's views.

Sir K. Pickthorn: Not a debate.

Mr. Brown: Further, I would ask the Leader of the House, in order to help us, this. I have to phrase it conditionally, although few of us have much doubt

about it. If we are recalled before 25th October, will he arrange that the recall is for a sufficient period to enable us to have adequate time to debate this matter, as well as the subject for which we might be recalled? I submit that we may well have had developments between now and then; it may well be very much more urgent then.
The right, hon Gentleman knows that proposals have been made, notably by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) an ex-Attorney-General, about possible amendments of the Public Order Act. I am conscious that the Home Secretary can plead tomorrow that he has not been in his present post long enough to have given his mind to the matter, but before we are recalled, if we should be recalled, that would no longer seem to apply.
If the Leader of the House were able to give me an answer affirmatively on these two points—that the Home Secretary will reply orally tomorrow and that if we come back earlier than 25th October time will be found for an adequate debate on this subject—I should, for my part, feel disposed to let the Motion go in its present form.
The issue is very serious and its consequences for democracy are potentially dangerous. It is not only the people who are insulted who react; extremists from the other end find this very profitable ground on which to play, and democracy is then under assault from two extremes which find it convenient to co-operate with each other, as they did in London before the war, and as they did in Berlin, with tremendous consequences in the 1930s. The whole business is so potentially dangerous, so distasteful, so shameful and so horrible to many of our fellow citizens that I hope that the Leader of the House will be able to give me an affirmative answer on these points so that we can then, I think, leave the Motion to take its course.

4.2 p.m.

Sir Robert Cary: In view of what has been said by the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), I hope that it will be possible for the Home Secretary to answer certain questions tomorrow, be-cause, in the light of the circumstances in which we find ourselves and in view of the unwanted and tragic events which


took place at Manchester on Sunday and at Dalston last night, it would be helpful if a word could be heard from the Home Secretary.
There is another point which I should like to put to the Leader of the House for information. Yesterday, we had a most important debate on the Report of the Committee on Broadcasting and the Government White Paper. Only seven hon. Members spoke from the back benches. The novelty of the debate was that some of the back bench speeches exceeded in time those of the Front Bench, which is rather a change from the usual pattern and complaint. The tragedy of the debate was that on so important an issue only seven voices wore heard from the back benches. By no stretch of the imagination can it be said that that was an adequate sounding of the House of Commons on so important a matter.
I put it, seriously, to my right hon. Friend that when so important a matter is left until the last moments of this part of the Session before we rise there ought to be a revision in the arrangement of Government business just as much as a self-denying ordinance on the part of hon. Members about the length of their speeches.

4.4 p.m.

Miss Margaret Herbison: I oppose the Motion, and I shall give the reasons for my opposition to it.
The Leader of the House has said that if the Motion is accepted, we shall have 82 clear days. But if we come back on 25th October, I understand that we shall return for only one day, for Prorogation. Therefore, the House will, in effect, not be sitting until the beginning of November. Unless the House is recalled for a specific purpose, that means that we shall have no chance of putting points to Ministers for more than three months.
I know that a number of hon. Members on this side of the House and perhaps some on the other side, are in the position that I am in. Although I am a Scottish Member, I have no grouse-shooting engagement on the "Twelfth", or on the days that fallow the "Twelfth". Many hon. Members are in that position, and Scottish Members, in particular, are seriously worried about the position of our country at present.
Yesterday morning, the Patronage Secretary, with the full support of the Leader of the House, who was sitting in his place, moved the Closure on the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill. When the Leader of the House was questioned about this yesterday he tried to show that much more time had been given for the Consolidated Fund Bill on this occasion than had ever been given before. But that was not the question. I was here the whole night long, and, from 6.15 a.m., until the Patronage Secretary moved the Closure, not a single hon. Member on this side made a contribution to the debate, although some of my hon. Friends were waiting to speak. Therefore, the last two and a quarter hours of the debate on the Bill were used by the Government's own back benchers and Ministers.
The Leader of the House tried to tell us that at least four and perhaps as many as six hon. Members had given notice that they wished to speak. I very strongly question that statement by the Leader of the House. Being an interested party, I wished to know when I might be called, and I saw the list at least twice. My name was last on it, and the name before that was my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and the one before that my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner).
We were the only three Members on this side of the House who wished to Speak, and no hon. Members from the other side of the House—unless they had put their names down very late indeed in the early hours of the morning—had signified their desire to speak. We on this side of the House have a suspicion that once the Government had ensured that every back bencher on their side of the House wishing to speak had made his contribution, contributions by hon Members on this side of the House did not matter at all.
I tell the Leader of the House, finally, that I and many of my hon. Friends are not at all satisfied with the statement which was made by the former Secretary of State for Scotland about pit closures and what would follow to give us alternative industry. We were given only a bald statement. We have since tried to get more information, but we have been unable to get any more. It


is because of the state of industry and the great unemployment in Scotland— 3,000 more Scotsmen and women are unemployed today than at this time last year—that I very strongly oppose the Motion that the House should adjourn for three months.

4.8 p.m.

Mr. William Yates: I desire not necessarily to oppose the Motion, but to obtain some better assurances from the Leader of the House about recall of the House in the event of further international mistakes, misunderstandings or failures to comprehend over Berlin.
I should have thought that the news yesterday evening, or on the B.B.C. this morning, that the United States Air Force had decided to send helicopters over East Berlin, well within its rights no doubt, was the sort of thing that might at any moment involve not only this country but our allies in a very difficult international situation.
I do not make any complaint, but I am one of those who remember the rising of the House in our polite, gentlemanly way last year for a long Summer Recess, and before we realised what had happened a wall had been built across the city of Berlin. It was suggested to the country that this had all been got up by the Press, whereas the majority of us who know something about it understand that at a certain time in August last year the United States Air Force was at a state of war with the Soviet Union. These sort of things might easily occur again. We should have a wider undertaking by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on this occasion.
Under Standing Order No. 112 hon. Members can try to get the House recalled. I have no doubt that hon. Members on this side also think that the House of Commons should have been recalled last year in August, or early September. Hon. Members opposite also sent in requests for that to be done. I am not too satisfied that the same sort of situation might not arise again when, in September, it would appear that both the United States and the Soviet Union will be attempting to test out their nerves again. That might be a very enjoyable

pastime for them, but I would have thought that this House should be recalled in the event of any major change in the situation in or around Berlin, or over the question of access to Berlin, and not recalled about four weeks later to discuss something which has already taken place and on which we were never asked for our views nor our agreement.
This would worry me less if there were not British troops actually in West Berlin itself, and we have to take account of the recent statement by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, who said, when discussing Berlin, that the presence of British troops was not a negotiable matter. That is a very important point of foreign policy, and I am one of those who are wondering whether the House should not have another opportunity of debating the Berlin situation before 15th September.
I do not say that I have foreknowledge that things will get any worse, but it seams to me that there is something wrong when diplomatic initiative is taken only by the Soviet Union and the United States and when we ourselves do not seem to be undertaking any major diplomatic moves to attempt to resolve the very difficult situation in West Berlin. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will suggest to the Minister of State that it would not be inopportune if the Government made a further statement concerning our policy in the event of friction between United States ground or air forces and the forces of the East German Government.
I wanted to go to a wedding and I see that I have been talking too long. [HON. MEMBERS: "Whose is it?"] It is not mine. But in order not to take up the time of the House much further, I ask my right hon. Friend for an undertaking that when he receives a request from the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Liberal Party to recall the House he will do so. During the Summer Recess last year, I decided to ask the national Press whether it thought that Parliament should be sitting, and I am glad to say that almost all national newspapers thought that it should have been sitting in September.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The views of the national Press about whether or no


Parliament should have been sitting then clearly have no bearing on this Motion.

Mr. Yates: I understand that, Mr. Speaker. Nevertheless, the point remains.
I do not wish to accept this Motion unless I have a categorical undertaking from my right hon. Friend that if the situation changes in West Berlin or over the right of access to the city, this House will be recalled and consulted before action is taken concerning British troops ox interests in and around West Berlin.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I feel so strongly after my experiences of last might that, for the first time in twenty-seven years, I am not prepared at the moment to acquiesce in the passing of this Motion, no matter what any other hon. Member may decide. I fall so strongly last night that I was confident that I would have been in order today in taking advantage of Standing Order No. 9 to raise a definite matter of urgent public importance.
I content myself now, however, with asking the Leader of the House for an undertaking on many questions I shall ask, and with asking the Joint Undersecretary of State for the Home Department how much longer the Government intend to continue to acquiesce in the provocation which is causing such bitter feeling among our people and is giving rise to the disorders which we had last evening—disorders which, after the last war, we thought we ware finished with.
It is now thirty-one years since I first had the privilege of opposing the rich aristocrat who is now allowed to challenge the democracy which the people I belong to have paid so dearly for in life, limb and sacrifices throughout the ages. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Nobody wants to waste time. The hon. Gentleman is being so careful not to go into the merits that we really must let him go on.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I should have thought that that warning should have been given to others.

Mr. G. Brown: It was.

Mr. Ellis Smith: As far as I am concerned, I am keeping within the rules of order. I respect Mr. Speaker and the

Chair. But I intend to be worthy of those I belong to and represent, no matter what it means to me personally.
I raise this matter because it represents an urgent challenge to the constitutional government of the country. It is a challenge to our people, and, therefore, I want to ask the Government whether the Home Secretary intends to go on acquiescing in these grave disorders during the Recess, and whether chief constables should be allowed also to acquiesce in these provocations, which are bound to give rise to the bitter feelings that we saw last night. These activities are repugnant following the last war in which so many of our people lost their sons.
Before we agree to this Motion, will the Joint Under-Secretary of State give an undertaking that he will consider what action can be taken to stop these provocations? I have consulted my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), whom we all respect for his record and his knowledge of these matters. He informs me that there are steps which could be taken without the introduction of any new legislation. While my right hon. and hon. Friends are supporting proposed new legislation to deal with this kind of thing, racial hatred is being whipped up. If the situation can be dealt with within the limits of the present legislation, then I ask the Government to take the necessary action.
Will the Leader of the House give an undertaking that there will be a full investigation into the conduct of the police in Ridley Road at eight o'clock last night? Included in that investigation, will he ask for witnesses of what took place? Between 7.45 and 8.15, the crowd along that road was as orderly as we are in this Chamber, but, at 8.10, 10 mounted policemen arrived and I charge the inspector of those mounted policemen with being responsible for what occurred.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that the hon. Member wants to help me and the House, but I think that he is going into the merits of this matter rather too much now. It is sufficient for the purposes of his argument to urge the extreme urgency of not allowing a repetition of such events, but the detail is rather far from the Motion.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I shall respect that advice, Mr. Speaker, and apply my observations to the urgency and the public importance of the matter which I am discussing. I hope that I shall be in order as long as I keep within those limits.
Standing among those people aroused my best emotions of pride. Unless we can have an undertaking that the constitutional rights of our people will be used to prevent this provocation, we shall be forced to take action to safeguard the democratic rights which we have won.
There is no doubt what was at stake in Trafalgar Square, in Manchester, and last night. Some of us know this rich aristocrat and all he stands for. I am asking the Leader of the House to give an undertaking that what has been said will be considered. I shall support the Motion if it is found that present legislation can be used to prevent provocative action of this kind, which is causing so much bitter racial hatred. But we must have that undertaking before we can agree to the Motion.

Mr. Iain Macleod: May I intervene to deal with this point which has been raised by three hon. Members and the right hon. Gentleman the Deputy Leader of the Opposition? I will reply to other points later.
In response to the feeling of the House, may I say that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will answer Questions, which have been tabled on this matter, at the end of Question Time tomorrow. Perhaps I may also say that there is another matter in which hon. Members are interested and about which my right hon. Friend will also be making a statement tomorrow. That is the case of Dr. Soblen. I intervene now merely to say that.

Mr. Tom Driberg: Arising out of what the Leader of the House has just said: when the Home Secretary answers Questions tomorrow, will he be able to answer on a matter which is strictly the responsibility of the Minister of Public Building and Works, that is, the use of Trafalgar Square during the Recess?

Mr. Macleod: The Home Secretary is a senior member of the Cabinet, of course, and I will convey that point of view to him.

4.24 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Kershaw: The right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) suggested that we might have more than one subject to discuss if we were recalled during the Recess, namely, that which has just been raised by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith). If we are to do that, is there to be a list of other subjects put forward by hon. Members?
My right hon. Friend will have noticed from the Press yesterday and today that it seems likely that very important decisions will be taken about weapons to be available to the Armed Forces. Those decisions may be taken during the Recess. It would be very disagreeable to some of us if we did not have an opportunity to discuss those decisions, which are likely to have very far-reaching effects.
Secondly, may I raise an entirely unrelated matter, the Leonardo cartoon, and ask for a further explanation? From what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said, I was not clear whether we are to have an opportunity to debate the matter before a decision is taken, or whether that time has already passed. If it has already passed, is not this an extraordinary way of doing things? If the people wanted the Leonardo, and wanted to pay for it, they would have been able to subscribe to it, but they did not do so. We are now asked, ex post facto, to vote a very large sum of money which could have been spent on modern art, helping modern artists and theatres, for instance, who could have used the money. Many of us feel that this grant is a retrograde step and an extraordinary thing to do without reference to the House.

Mr. Speaker: There is great difficulty about what the hon. Member is saying in relation to the Motion. Whether the step was good or bad, it having been taken, it does not affect the problem arising on this Motion.

Mr. Kershaw: Are we to have an answer to what I have said before we rise or not?

Mr. E. Shinwell: On a point of order. Is not the point of what the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) has been saying not the merits


of the case—I recognise that that is not a matter for debate at present, although it appears to me, with great respect, that several matters of merit have already been raised—

Mr. Speaker: All that that would mean would be that I have been unduly indulgent. Sometimes, keeping people, including all of us, in order, wastes rather more time than not doing so.

Mr. Shinwell: I am not asking for any indulgence, Sir. I direct your attention to this point, which is relevant to the Motion. The Leader of the House said that there would be some expenditure from the Civil Contingencies Fund for a cartoon which is to be purchased. The question which arises is not the merits of that purchase or the grant which the Government propose to make, but whether the money should be expended before the House has had an opportunity of considering the matter and either approving or disapproving of the proposal. That is the point and not the merits of the case, not whether the cartoon should be bought, but whether the money should be expended before the House rises.

Mr. Speaker: I desire to keep the House off discussing the merits of the purchase, which, clearly, would be out of order. I intervened when the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) was speaking because I thought, I hope not wrongly, that he was in that field and was not dealing with the opportunity of discussing the expenditure, as the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) was suggesting.

4.28 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: There are two dates in the Motion, one Friday 3rd August, and the other 25th October. But it must be appreciated that 25th October is a day of pure formality and ceremonial and that the effective date of Parliament's return is 30th October. So we are faced not with 82 days when Parliament is not sitting, but with three complete months.
It would be hypocritical of anyone to suggest that we should not rise for a holiday on Friday, for Friday will mark the end of what has been virtually the bloodiest Session of Parliament which we have had for a long time. If nothing

else, we should give the Leader of the House time to clean up his Guillotine.
This Session five major Bills have been passed under a Guillotine, and the administration of those Measures is about to start. Today, a Question was answered on behalf of the Secretary of State for War, when it was said that 9,912 National Service men ware to have their conscription extended for another six months. If we go on holiday for three months—and we have no power to complain about that directly to a Minister —what are the troops to think of us?
It is not good enough to say that the legislation has bean passed and must be accepted, and to reply to their comment that we should be looking after their interests by adopting the attitude adopted by the Prime Minister to the ex-Secretary of State for Scotland—"I'm all right, Jack."
The question is whether we have sufficient faith in this administration to allow it off the lead for three months. The answer is that we have not. The first step under the Commonwealth Immigrants Act—which was the second of the Measures dealt with under the Guillotine—caused a furore in the House and the cancellation of the decision which had been made. What would have happened if the House had not been sitting? In other words, with this immature Administration nobody knows what may happen—and it is an immature Administration. The members of the Government have been described as the young ones, although the prima donna is ageing and has lost confidence in himself, and has caused other to lose confidence in him.
I am sorry that the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), whose speech about access to a school I have heard "unclosured" six times is not here. She has shown an interest in this next point. We have been promised a Pensions (Increase) Bill next Session. The longer we delay the start of the next Session, the longer it will be before these increases are paid. Why is it that hon. Gentlemen opposite are not complaining about the Government service pensioners having to wait so long for an increase in their pensions, merely because the House proposes to rise for this length of time? It must be


remembered, too, that these proposed increases will apply only to those who are superannuated or are receiving pensions as former Government servants.
What about the 5 million old-age pensioners? The longer we are in recess, the longer it will take the Government to remedy their situation. At the moment, they are losing £1½ million a week on the basis of the deterioration in the value of money since their last pensions increase. It follows, therefore, that while we are in recess they will lose nearly £20 million. They will lose this sum solely because of the failure of the Government to take steps to raise the retirement pension.
The longer we are in recess, the longer it will be before anything can be done. The first week of our return will be spent in discussing the Queen's Speech. Nothing can be done before the second week of November, and before we know where we are we shall rise for the Christmas Recess. This is the nonsensical situation which arises from the present arrangement of the sittings of Parliament.
Further, when we come to discuss this increase in pensions, it is more than probable that the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance will say that because of administrative difficulties it will not be possible to pay the increase before April. I appeal to hon. Gentlemen to prove that they mean what they say about providing increases for old-age pensioners by taking steps to convince the Government that the proposed Bill should be introduced as soon as possible. To do this they should sacrifice some part of their holidays. After all, if we can toll 10,000 troops in the B.A.O.R. and elsewhere that they must stay in the Army for an extra six months, hon. Members who voted for that should be prepared to come back from their holidays a little earlier and deal with some of the problems confronting us.
My next point relates to the Morison Report. We were told today by the Secretary of State for Scotland that there would have to be considerable consultation before anything could be done about the problem of probation officers in Scotland.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Order. I am following the hon. Member very carefully, but I find it difficult to understand how that matter concerns whether we adjourn on Friday and return on a certain date.

Mr. Ross: The point is that if Parliament is not sitting we cannot discuss the problem. It is as simple as that. If Parliament is not sitting we cannot debate legislation which may be necessary to ensure that probation officers in Scotland are treated on the same basis as those in England and Wales.
The Morison Report makes the point that they should be so dealt with in any negotiations over pay. I want to press this point on the Government every week. The Secretary of State for Scotland said that he would be willing to do something if we could persuade him to do it. I therefore think that it is relevant to the discussion that we should continue to press the Government to ensure that probation officers in Scotland are justly treated.
There is one other point. We have had from the Secretary of State for Scotland just one speech, lasting thirty minutes, by which he broke a silence of two and a half years. In fact, those Members who were present at Question Time today probably heard the right hon. Gentleman for the first time in their lives. One of the cynical reasons given for his appointment to this position was that the Prime Minister had not heard him. In the Scottish Press today the Scottish Trades Union Council expressed surprise that the Secretary of State for Scotland was not proposing to meet the Council until 31st August to discuss the deteriorating situation in Scotland.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member yet again, but I cannot see that whether the Secretary of State for Scotland meets the Scottish Council is relevant to the actual dates of the Recess.

Mr. Ross: It has this comparative relevance. If people in Scotland are bitterly disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman is not to meet them in Scotland until 31st August, how much more bitterly disappointed will they be when they learn that Parliament has decided that we shall not be able to meet him here until 30th October to impress on


him the need to take further action in relation to the situation in Scotland?
I should have thought that every Scottish Member, irrespective of where he was sitting, was aware of the deteriorating industrial situation in Scotland and would want to do something about it. Before winter sets in 100,000 people will be unemployed in Scotland. The situation is so bad that in Lanarkshire last week, when a job as a greaser in a factory was advertised, there were 300 applicants. Yet we hear hon. Gentlemen opposite talking about the shortage of labour.
Are we to be denied for three months the right to press the Government to take action to deal with the situation in Scotland? That is what this Recess will mean. The last act of the ex-Secretary of State for Scotland was to announce the closure of pits in Scotland which will mean the loss of nearly 30,000 jobs, and we still do not know what is being done to bring new industries into the area. That is why I want the Leader of the House to consider the points that I have made. It will take more than the gags and Closures of the Patronage Secretary to prevent us talking about our country when we want to do so.
For those few reasons I sincerely hope that the Government will think again about bringing us back at such a late date. Certainly, the Recess should be cut by at least two months.

4.40 p.m.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: In the temporary absence of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, to whom I wanted to make an appeal, perhaps I can appeal to the Leader of the Opposition. I ask him to reconsider the conditions that he has attached to supporting the Motion. As I understand, there were four. He should withdraw three of the four, on further consideration. His first condition was that if we are brought back specially to discuss the Common Market there should be Oral as well as Written Questions. I do not object to that. It is up to the Leader of the House to see if that can be arranged.
The second condition was that if any group of Members asked the Government to recall the House that course should automatically be taken. I do not

agree. It is the responsibility of the Leader of the House and the Government in general to assess the situation, and to judge whether there is a need to recall the House. It is for them to make an appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, if they think that that course is merited. If the Leader of the House agrees to take full and sympathetic account of any representations made by the official Opposition, or any group of Members, that should be sufficient. But it must be the Government, and nobody else, after they have taken all relevant matters into account, who should decide whether an appeal should be made to you, Mr. Speaker.
The third condition was that we should automatically talk about an increase in the salaries of probation officers, and the fourth that we should discuss the stupidity of the Mosley riots. I do not think that such conditions should be specifically attached to a special recall which has in mind a discussion of the Common Market negotiations. If either of those subjects, standing by themselves, merit recalling the House, that is one of the representations that could be made to the Leader of the House and taken into account.
If, two months before the date named, we attach those two specific items to a possible recall, how are we to know that by the time Parliament is recalled there will not be a list of other subjects of equal importance? It would be sufficient if, at this stage, the Leader of the Opposition withdrew these specific conditions and merely asked the Government to give full and sympathetic consideration to the merits of any case put forward.
I make that suggestion because we expect a special recall to discuss the possible outcome of discussions on the Common Market, which is a matter of outstanding importance. It is fundamental. That should warrant the recall of the House. But to tie to a discussion of that subject discussions on one or two other subjects—which at this stage we may not be aware of, but may be of real importance when the House is recalled—Would be to dilute the significance to be attached to the debate on the Common Market. I appeal to the Leader of the Opposition to insist by all


means that full and proper thought should be given to any representations he may make during the Recess, but not to attach specific conditions, as I under-stood the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to do.

4.42 p.m.

Mr. E. Shinwell: Whether my right hon. Friends set conditions, or modify or withdraw them, it will be all the same in the long run. The Government will do what they please. It is surely obvious that the Government will not recall the House unless, as a result of the Common Market negotiations, they believe that they have been successful, and hope to gain the support of the House. They will not recall the House otherwise.
I have listened to these debates for many years, and a good deal of humbug is talked in them. Almost every hon. Member—even if he is one of those who wants to curtail the Recess—is very glad to get away. I am not surprised. I am at variance with what my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) said in this respect. It is not that I disagree with the merits of his case— the need for further discussion of unemployment and the like; all that is far from objectionable. But I say that it is quite a mistake to suppose that by curtailing the Recess by one month, or even by two months, as my hon. Friend suggested, the Government would be induced to produce beneficial legislation, or legislation which was satisfactory to the Opposition—or, for that matter, to suppose that any questions asked by hon. Members on this side of the House would lead to a satisfactory response from the Government.
I take it further: if my hon. Friend, as the result of the recall of the House somewhat earlier than is intended under the Government Motion, ventures to protest at the Government's action or inaction, the only result will be that the Government will still have their own way. What does anybody think will happen? My right hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) says that it is not necessary. Does he believe—

Mr. F. J. Bellenger: I did not say that.

Mr. Shinwell: I thought my right hon. Friend did. At any rate, somebody said it. I am sorry; I thought it came from just in front of me, but apparently it came from another bench on this side of the House. Whoever may have said it, I suggest that if anybody on this side of the House believes that he can make an impact on the Government Front Bench he is making a mistake. Not even hon. Members opposite can make an impact on the Government.
What has happened in recent years is quite a new phenomenon. The authority of the Executive over the House of Commons is now far greater than it has ever been before. In fact, it is a danger to Parliamentary democracy.
Anybody who supposes—no matter how eloquent he is, however penetrating his argument, or however influential he may regard himself—that he has any influence over the Government and that he can persuade the Government to do as he pleases, is making a mistake. There is an obvious reason why he cannot do so. It is because the Government themselves are at sixes and sevens. Therefore, what is the use of asking that the Recess should be curtailed? The Government do not intend to produce any legislation that is worth a tinker's curse—if I may venture to indulge in such a term. What is the use of all this palaver about meeting a little earlier? The Government will not be having a well-deserved rest, but it will be a much-needed one. As far as I am concerned, if we did not see this Government for many months, I should be delighted. I do not expect anything from them. Does anybody else?

Mr. Ellis Smith: Yes.

Mr. Shinwell: Who? My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) is one of the most sincere Members of the House. I am not questioning his integrity, but he is very innocent if he imagines that anything that he says in the House will make any impact on the Government Front Bench.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I purposely said, "Yes", because it is surely elementary to expect action to be taken upon the question that I raised.

Mr. Shinwell: I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments expressed by my right


hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South and others, about the provocation that has resulted in disorder, and the action of the police— although I am far from complaining about the police until the whole of the evidence is before us. But all that apart, what are the Government likely to do as a result of all these protests? My right hon. Friend the Member for Belper submitted a condition for accepting the Motion. He said that the House ought to be recalled earlier than usual for the purpose of ascertaining from the Home Secretary whether he would be ready to use his authority to prevent meetings of the kind that were held last night in Dalston and quite recently in Manchester.
The Home Secretary will do nothing of the kind. For one thing, he will say that he has no authority. He will produce the familiar argument, that we hear so often, that we must retain the right of free speech. That is complete humbug. I am all in favour of free speech. I have used it many times. But there is a vast difference between free speech and licence—allowing people to say what they like irrespective of whether they offend—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. My difficulty is allowing Members to say what they please, when it may or may not be out of order. I am concerned that the right hon. Gentleman does not go too far into details.

Mr. Shinwell: And, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, with respect, that is precisely what I thought earlier, when I ventured to suggest to Mr. Speaker that perhaps there was a little too much indulgence with right hon. and hon. Members. But I did it with respect, and one cannot go farther than that.
I do not wish to delay the debate which is to come, because I know that hon. Members are straining at the leash to express views about the Common Market. And, by the way, suppose they do. Does anybody imagine that anything will happen effectively as a result of it? Of course not. It is just a lot of palaver.

Mr. Ross: Does this mean—because my right hon. Friend is expressing these

sentiments—that we shall hear no more from Privy Councillors on this side of the House?

Mr. Shinwell: I think that you would agree, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that if I began to discuss the privileges accorded to Privy Councillors I should be completely out of order. I could say a great deal about that. When I reflect on the length of speeches made by hon. Mem-bars who are not Privy Councillors, but who wish they were—and make every effort to become Privy Councillors—I feel that I might suggest to my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock that the less said about Privy Councillors the better—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]. In any event, why not make all hon. Members Privy Councillors? In point of fact, if there is any complaint against the Government it is that they make too many Privy Councillors. I cannot recall all the details, but when I think of hon. Members on the back benches who have become Privy Councillors—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. We must come back to the Question before the House.

Mr. Shinweil: I think that it will be conceded, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that I did not raise the matter. But if I am provoked, what do hon. Members expect? I am being as respectful as possible to my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock, and anyway, I know better than to be otherwise.
There may be some reason for curtailing the Recess on the assumption that the Government will come forward with considered views on the subject of the provocation arising out of meetings held by certain organisations. If that were so, I suggest that we ought to meet in another month to hear what the Home Secretary has to say. There would be some justification in curtailing the Recess to hear what the Government had to say about the new weapons which are intended, as was suggested by an hon. Member opposite, or on the subject of Berlin and the like, which are fundamental issues. But if it is merely that we should come back so that the Government may indulge in a lot of "talkie-talkie" about irrelevancies, the later Parliament reassembles the better.
I wish to raise one pertinent issue— indeed, that is all I intended to do in any case. It is this. The Leader of the House promised me yesterday that today he would mention the matter of the Leonardo da Vinci cartoon and give an undertaking regarding the money being expended under the Civil Contingencies Fund. Today he has given an answer which, to me, is quite unsatisfactory. I am not discussing the merits of this matter at all. I do not want to. I am not an "arty" person, I know very little about art. But this I do know—it is unwise to spend money unnecessarily. That is all I want to say about the merits of the matter.
I wish to know from the Leader of the House by what authority will the Government expend £350,000 out of the Civil Contingencies Fund for the purpose of assisting in the purchase of that cartoon without the approval of the House? It is my contention that the Government have no right to do anything of the sort, unless they have the approval of the House. They have no right to provide the money from the Civil Contingencies Fund or by way of a Supplementary Estimate.
If, as a result, the cartoon goes elsewhere, I do not regard that as an irreparable disaster. I am not concerned about that aspect; it relates to the merits of the case. I am concerned about the authority of this House in matters of finance and I deny the right of the Government to expend this vast sum of money for the purpose of assisting in the purchase of this cartoon until they have received the approval of the House.

4.55 p.m.

Mrs. Patricia McLaughlin: We all realise the necessity for a Recess. But when we are considering whether to approve this Motion it is necessary that mention should be made of things which have been left undone and, in fact, to dwell on them if necessary, before Parliament goes into recess for so many days.
An important matter in which I, and, I hope, many of my hon. Friends—certainly, hon. Members who represent constituencies in Northern Ireland—are interested is that we have had no final

decision on the future of the aircraft industry in Northern Ireland. We are aware that there are many factors to be considered in this matter—that the new Minister of Aviation visited Northern Ireland, and so on—but we are also aware that the Leader of the House has been unable to give any assurance despite the fact that the firm concerned, Short Bros, and Harland, has stated that by the end of July—yesterday—it would no longer be able to maintain itself as a fully equipped design and production unit. And we are proposing to go into recess without anything definite being done by the Government.
During the Recess we shall have no way of approaching Ministers directly, as is the case when Parliament is sitting, and we are anxious about what will be done during the Recess. We are anxious that the 7,500 men employed in the industry shall not be left without knowing what are their employment prospects in the future. We are anxious to know when the Royal Air Force will decide on its new strategic aeroplane, and we are anxious—this master was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw)—to know something about the future production of weapons some of which may be made by Short Bros. We are anxious to know when a decision will be taken about what is to happen in connection with this very important industry in this very important part of the United Kingdom
Today, we have discussed whether Parliament should be recalled to hear about the state of the Common Market negotiations. I suggest, humbly, that we might be interested to know what is to be the procedure in a part of the United Kingdom where action is most needed. I suggest, again, humbly, that the Leader of the House might give us some idea or some assurance—the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation and the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department are present and perhaps they might have something to say on the matter—about what will happen in Northern Ireland. We have no right to approve a Motion relating to a Recess which is to last for three months without knowing some-thing definite about the future of an industry which has been of such importance for so many years. We have had


no such assurance from any Minister and I think that we ought to be assured before the Motion before the House is approved.

4.58 p.m.

Mr. Tom Driberg: My right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) spoke in an agreeable vein of mild cynicism and seemed almost to be suggesting that Parliament might as well pack up altogether—

Mr. Shinwell: I meant that this Government should.

Mr. Driberg: —for all the good we might do with this Government in power, and I disagree with my right hon. Friend only on that point. I will give one illustration of the fact that the House and the Opposition can bring effective pressure on the Government on specific matters. A couple of weeks ago there was the incident of the Jamaican girl who was to be deported. Had that matter come up a fortnight hence instead of a fortnight ago, she would have been deported by now, because Parliament would not have been in Session.
Before I come to the two specific points which I want to raise I should like to make two procedural points—if the Leader of the House would be good enough to listen to them. First, the Leader of the House knows that we are using our legitimate right, on this particular Adjournment Motion, to raise a number of points which seem to us to be urgent, or which ought to be dealt with, or about which we ought to get assurances before we allow the Government to have the Motion. But we regret that in doing so we are, it would seem, inevitably, cutting short the important debate on the Common Market. Could the Leader of the House consider suspending the Rule for one or two hours later tonight, if that should prove desirable—if there are a large number of hon. Members who wish to speak in the Common Market debate?
That is the first procedural point I want to make. Secondly, a number of different points have been raised and will be raised which we cannot expect the Leader of the House himself to deal with substantially in whatever further reply he may be good enough to give.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) raised points concerning the Secretary of State for Scotland. I am going to raise an extremely urgent point which concerns a Colonial Territory and which must be dealt with, if at all, within the next few days. I know that this is a lot to ask, but would it be possible for one or two Ministers or Under-Secretaries of the Departments concerned to be hare to give brief answers on such points as these?
The first main subject that I want to discuss, in a way that is both extremely specific and highly relevant to the Motion on the Order Paper, is the matter which was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown). I am glad that he said: "We cannot leave that issue for long undebated". I am glad also to hear that the Home Secretary tomorrow is to answer these Questions orally if they are not reached. I wish the Minister of Public Building and Works had exercised the same discretion and had asked Mr. Speaker's leave to do that yesterday, when I asked if he would do so, but he said that he would not because he had nothing to say—which is, of course, not an unfamiliar phenomenon. I ask him a Question, which was not reached, about the organisations which have so far been granted the use of Trafalgar Square on Sunday afternoons in the next three months, when the House will be in Recess.
As hon. Members can see if they look at Written Answers in yesterday's HANSARD, eight dates have already been booked for Sunday afternoons, most of them by quite harmless or worthy movements such as the Golborne Rehabilitation Centre—an excellent hostel which cares far people on probation and ex-prisoners—the Metropolitan Templar Federation, Sinn Fein, and the Navy League. But already there have been applications for the use of Trafalgar Square on 2nd September from the British National Party and on 23rd September from the Union Movement. In his reply, the Minister said that the application from the Union Movement had only recently been received—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. Again I regret to interrupt an hon. Member, but the question before us is the Summer Adjournment. I think the hon. Member has had ample opportunity to make


clear the details which he would like to have answered, perhaps tomorrow, without continuing on this line in relation to the Summer Recess.

Mr. Driberg: The point I am trying to make, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that it is dangerous for this House to go away for three months and leave the Government in charge of these matters unless we get an assurance from them that there will not be grave public disorder in Trafalgar Square and other places, as there is bound to be unless they decide to cancel the permissions which have already been given. In his reply yesterday the Minister said that the application from the Union Movement was now being considered. That is the Mosley gang. He also said, unfortunately, that the application from the British National Party for 2nd September had been granted. He said he could find "no grounds for withdrawing the permissions already granted". This, surely, is highly relevant when we are considering whether we can agree to this Motion at all unless we can get some contrary indication of the Government's intention on this matter. The British National Party—I should explain in parenthesis, since it has changed its name so frequently—is Mr. Colin Jordan's little gang of criminal psychopaths, who are even more extreme in in their abusive provocations than the Mosley gang.
It is quite clear that the Minister has been misled in the past. He has told us that advice was given by the Chief Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis that it would be all right to have those meetings which have already been held. That advice was demonstrably wrong. If the Commissioner has again said that it is all right to have these meetings on 2nd and 23rd September, this House should express itself in a contrary sense by refusing to allow this Motion to be passed today unless we can get some assurance about it.
Quite apart from the merits of the case, which I shall not argue, it is certain—absolutely certain—that there will be grave public disorder on the Sunday afternoons of 2nd and 23rd September if the Minister allows these meetings to take place. I also feel that it is dangerous to go away for so long and

leave this matter in the hands of Ministers who fail to distinguish, as most civilised countries can, between the expression of genuine political views, however unorthodox or unpopular they may be—a freedom which must always be safeguarded—and public incitement to racial hatred and discrimination, which is much more akin to obscene or seditious libel.
I shall not continue on that because I do not want to cut across your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The second point —an entirely different point—which I want to raise briefly, concerns the Secretary of State for the Commonwealth and Colonies. I am sorry to trouble the House with what some hon. Members may think a very trivial matter, but I do not think it is. It concerns a small minority of people in a Colonial Territory and the reason I have to raise it now is that it is a small community of people in the territory of Jamaica, which becomes independent in a few days' time, as the Leader of the House will know. After Jamaica becomes independent it will presumably be out of order and quite impossible to raise in this House any matter concerning the internal policy or administration of Jamaica.
I am concerned about the future welfare and the fate and freedom of the people known as the Maroons of Jamaica—the Maroons of Accompong and of Trelawney Town. To remind hon. Members who may not recall their West Indian history, I should say that these Maroons have an extraordinarily romantic and interesting history. As far back as the eighteenth century they won their freedom: they won a treaty of independence from the British Government. They were runaway slaves, and descendants of runaway slaves, who escaped to the mountains and fought a number of harassing guerrilla wars against the British. Eventually, in 1739, "articles of pacification" were concluded which guaranteed them—this is the point—their freedom and the possession "for themselves and posterity for ever all the lands situate and lying between Trelawney Town and the Cockpits, to the amount of 1,500 acres."
Whatever has happened since then, the Maroons have always cherished and


tried to safeguard some degree of independence. Obviously we all welcome the independence of Jamaica as a whole, and wish the Jamaican people well in future; but I hope, first, that the Jamaican Government will deal tenderly with these interesting people, living as they do in a few remote mountain villages. Secondly, I hope that the Minister—although I know this is a lot to ask—will be able to say something today about them, because this is the last occasion on which it will be possible to discuss them in this House, in view of the impending independence of Jamaica. This is not something I have sprung on the Department without any warning. I have raised this before at Question Time and by letter with the previous Secretary of State for the Colonies. I hope, therefore, that it will be possible to have a few words from the Government about these matters.

5.10 p.m.

Mr. A. R. Wise: I never thought that I should find myself opposing my summer holiday, but on this particular occasion I think we must have a great deal more assurance from the Government than we have at the moment.
I am unashamedly going to refer to possible events that may occur in regard to the negotiations for our possible signature of the Treaty of Rome. We have been told that the House may be recalled some time in the middle of September for three days in order to be told what is happening. That is not good enough. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] We have had a number of debates on the Common Market hitherto. How many back bench Members have had the opportunity to speak? Three days is nonsense. We must have really adequate time to discuss something which is of very great moment. This is am attempt to put the clock back—not forward—1,900 years, to the time when Agricola came to this country with an army of Frenchmen, Germans and Italians. We have every right to claim far more opportunity for discussing these matters than in fact we are likely to have under the present arrangements.
More than that, we have a Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference sitting in September. Normally, I would be the first to say "Let them conduct

their consultations without being bothered too much by speeches in this House", but the situation does not work out that way. As far as we can see, if our Ministers are left alone in these matters they will sell every pass there is, while we have no means of doing anything about it. We have so far had experience of this, and I am afraid I must quote it, in one thing after another. We allowed the Government to enter into exploratory negotiations. A number of points have been gently allowed to pass by without protest, or without as much protest as there should have been.
For instance, there was our original objection to Article 240 of the Treaty of Rome—the "eternity clause"—which passed without discussion. We have compromised on one thing after another. At the moment, we are making concessions on agriculture without getting anything in return, and again without any discussion. We are talking about abandoning our sovereignty, again without discussion. We must have more time. This House has a right to be heard on these matters, and I make no apology for going into them, with your very kind permission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in this modest amount of detail.
There are other things that arise— things which affect Her Majesty's Ministers themselves. More than one, in the past, has made utterances which we have all welcomed, and to which we were firmly convinced they will adhere. The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and Secretary of State for the Colonies made a statement in which he said that rather than allow any harm to come to the Commonwealth he will go back into private life. It is only right that, if he should have to make this decision, and I pray that he does not have to make it. he should have the usual forum in which to make the usual final speech of a Minister who, for once in a while, has resigned on a point of conscience, and has not been sacked.
There are many other Ministers concerned, though I would not go into details, who gave unequivocal promises on the question of the free entry of Commonwealth imports, and the present Chancellor of the Exchequer has committed himself more than once on this point. There may be many people in


the country who firmly agree with his point of view, but I think that this House should be sitting, in order that we may know if things go wrong and express our opinion. We cannot stand another Chancellor of the Exchequer within six months.
For all these reasons, I want to make a very revolutionary suggestion. We should ignore this business of extending the present Session by recalling the House, because I think that it will do little good. We should firmly insist that we need the amount of holiday which we can get, and there is no doubt about that. I should like to suggest that we should start the new Session, at the latest, on 1st October instead of the 30th so that the Government business can follow its ordinary course with the Bills which are necessary and which would have been brought forward anyway and adjourn at the beginning of December instead of just before Christmas, which will give the same length of Session and more opportunity for the Government to conduct their business. If it is necessary for us to come back for a week or more to discuss this one specific subject of the Common Market in the middle of September, I think we will all gladly make that sacrifice in addition.

5.18 p.m.

Mr. George Thomas: I want to support, first, the arguments of the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Wise), which I believe ought to be taken into very serious consideration by the Government.
It is monstrous that the Leader of the House should stand there and suggest that we should come back some time during the Long Recess to have three days in which to discuss the biggest issue that has arisen in our history since 1066, and that the Government should offer the House of Commons less time in which to discuss the Common Market than we shall have in discussing the Address in reply to the Queen's Speech. There is a tradition in this House that we have four days' debate on the Queen's Speech, and I believe that every hon. Member on both sides of the House has an inherent right to make his voice heard on the biggest issue that has arisen in our lifetime.
It is offensive for the Government to believe that the results of secret negotiations which have been carried on for nearly a year can be brought to us and that we should be expected to reach a decision in three days, when three-quarters of the House will not have had an opportunity to voice an opinion. I feel very strongly on this question, because I believe that the whole of our national way of life is challenged by the proposals that are under way with the Common Market, and that, at least, there ought to be given to us an opportunity to speak, not only to the Government but to the country, which is our privilege when we speak in this House. When we debate the Common Market we shall be helping to make up the minds of the country, and it is only fair that all people should hear the full case and not merely that of the two Front Benches and one or two other Privy Councillors who are able to get into the debate.
There is another point which I wish to raise and which has kept me jumping to my feet throughout the debate.

Mr. Shinwell: I have been trying to get in, too.

Mr. Thomas: My right hon. Friend is still trying to get into the debate.
I wish to make a point which concerns the Principality. We have heard this afternoon appeals from Scotland and Northern Ireland against the injustices of the Government being continued in the Recess, and I wish to raise a question concerning people in Wales, in particular, but also concerning people in England and possibly in Northern Ireland. It is a question of a statement being made on Government policy on leasehold reform before the House goes into Recess.
A fortnight ago the new Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs made a statement to the Welsh Members in which he poured cold water on the idea of any legislation concerning leasehold reform during the next Session. This statement by the Minister has given encouragement to every ground landlord to go ahead increasing his demands upon our people in South Wales. Not only, therefore, will the long Recess mean that we


cannot fight for earliest legislation to deal with leasehold, but it will also mean that during the three months of silence of Parliament the ground landlords will feel free to go ahead with the rapacious demands which they are now making upon our people.
Like hon. Members who have spoken on other issues, I make no apology for raising a matter which is of prime importance to the people who live in my constituency. I should be failing in my duty, and they would think that I had taken leave of my senses, if I did not oppose a long Recess like this without, first, a Government statement on what they propose to do about leasehold reform. If we go down for three months—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: If we go up.

Mr. Thomas: I am not a lawyer. I am more innocent. "Going down" to me means returning to my constituency. If we go into recess for three months it means that the people who are leaseholders, who are faced with ever-increasing demands, will be more than ever at the mercy of these finance corporations about which I have spoken to the House before. It will soon be a year since I presented to the House and to the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs a Petition signed by 60,000 people in the Principality asking for Government action on the leasehold question.
Are the Government telling me that I must go back to the Principality and tell them to wait for another three months—and even then we have no guarantee that hope will be held out to the leaseholders? I feel very strongly on this question, as I do on the question of the Common Market, and I hope that on both these issues the Leader of the House will give a satisfactory reply.
As I resume my seat, may I say, as a fellow Celt, that I sympathise with the speeches made by my hon. Friends from Scotland, because I realise that the Celts get a bad deal from this Government. I realise that at one time there would not have been a Tory Government without the Northern Ireland M.P.s—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Thomas: I agree with you, Mr. Speaker. That was out of order. I hope that the Minister will bear in mind what I said.

rose—

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Macleod.

5.25 p.m.

Mr. Iain Macleod: As the House knows we have in front of us still a most important debate. I think that it wouild be right if I tried to reply to a number of most important points—

Mr. Godfrey Lagden: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, can you advise me whether the Leader of the House is closing the debate? There are many hon. Members, including myself, who wish to take part in it.

Sir Barnett Janner: Further to that point of order. I remained in the House until 8.30 a.m. the other day, having been in the House all night, and was then stopped from speaking by a Closure Motion. There are a number of hon. Members who still wish to speak on this important matter. Have we any protection and assurance that the debate will not be stopped by the Leader of the House?

Mr. Speaker: It is no good asking me that question. I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman intends to do. I have called him, and the fact of calling him has no bearing on what he will do.

Mr. Hector Hughes: rose—

Mr. Leslie Hale: It is impossible for the Leader of the House—

Mr. Speaker: I take it that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) has a point of order to raise, but we must take them one at a time. Mr. Hector Hughes.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Sir B. Janner), may I ask whether I have any protection? I sat out the whole of the censure debate and was not called. I have been sitting out the whole of this debate and I have not yet been called. Is there any prospect that I shall be called?

Mr. Speaker: I should not like to commit myself in advance about any such difficult proposition.

Mr. Hale: Further to that point of order. There may be different motives for continuing this discussion, but I rise to call attention to a letter which I received five minutes ago and which is the most scandalous document which I have ever had at any time since I have been in Parliament. It was written by the new Minister of Pensions about an old case relating to a man who is mentally ill and may be certified as insane—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member rose to a point of order but that does not seem to be one.

Mr. Hale: The point of order is this: how is it possible for the Leader of the House to reply to a point of this kind which up to now has not been put in the debate, about a matter of which he has no cognisance, a matter which is urgent and a matter which is directly directed to this point, because we all know that these letters are sent out every year on the afternoon of 31st July? The House should not adjourn while conduct of that kind—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. I cannot decide whether the Minister can reply to this or that question. I have merely called him to speak.

Mr. Macleod: This debate was opened by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition who put a number of points to me. I have dealt with one of them. It was raised by other hon. Members. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg), both in an intervention and later when he spoke to this Motion, on the question of the use of the Square. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will reply to those two Questions which are on the Order Paper at the end of Questions tomorrow.

Sir B. Janner: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that at Question Time we are entitled only to ask a few supplementary questions and that no debate can take place? What assurance have we that a debate will take place?

Mr. Macleod: I was coming in a moment to the question put by the right hon. Gentleman about a debate, when we are recalled, if there is a recall.
On the question of the recall of Parliament, the House is familiar with the terms of Standing Order No. 112, which I do not propose to read, and which says, in effect, that whenever the House stands adjourned and it is represented to you, Mr. Speaker, by Her Majesty's Ministers that public interest requires an earlier meeting, there is machinery to give effect to that. I could preface the first undertaking for which I was asked by saying that although the final decision is bound to rest with the Government, we should give full weight to ail representations from any quarter of the House particularly, as the right hon. Gentleman put it, from the Opposition Front Bench.
The answer is, "Yes, of course." Nobody could deny the immense importance of this issue. We would certainly give the very fullest weight to representations made, as they frequently are in these circumstances, from the Opposition Front Bench and also to any substantial number of Members of Parliament from either side of the House who wish to make such representations. [HON. MEMBERS: "What does 'substantial' mean?"] I withdraw "substantial" and say "to all representations made".
On the question of public statements, the position is that we would wish to try to report to the House as far as we can on the Brussels negotiations, as fully and in the same sort of way as if the House were sitting. It is accepted that the best way of doing this would be for my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal to make as extended a progress report as he can and that this should be in the form of a White Paper. I give the undertaking that it will be in such a form. I cannot tell how many reports is would be appropriate to have, because that depends on negotiations which have not yet taken place, but the first of these reports would be as a result of the round of talks in Brussels which starts today.
I was then asked about Questions, again in the hypothetical event of recall. As I understand it, the position is that our rules of order rule out Oral Questions, but statements and Private Notice Questions are in order on those days. If there are matters very much in the forefront of the public mind, I give an


assurance to the House that my right hon. Friends would be ready in one way or another, either by statements or in reply to Private Notice Questions, to give the fullest information to the House.
The right hon. Gentleman then raised a more difficult point about a debate on a particular subject. The subject he mentioned was probation officers' salaries. As a number of my hon. Friends pointed out, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw), there would then be other claimants whose case hon. Members on either side of the House might wish to press. I will gladly consider this request, as long as it is understood that it is considered in conjunction with the others and in relation to the time available to the House. I do not think that it will be appropriate to give an undertaking on this point going further than that.
I do not propose to deal today with what I might call the merits of the case or the arguments for free speech and the law arising from these particularly vicious doctrines which are being preached at present, in view of the undertaking which I have given that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will answer Questions on this matter.

Mr. B. T. Parkin: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking to this effect? If a solution is found, after consultation with the lawyers, along the lines of the various Bills which are before the House, or which are to be put before the House, or along the lines of suggestions which have been made by my right hon. and learned Friend the ex-Attorney-General, to the problem of amending the Public Order Act by a single simple Clause which is easily understood, will he undertake to find time, if Parliament is recalled, to pass that amending legislation through all its stages? As it is clearly understood that the minimum debate would be required, this is something which everybody would desire and it would immediately strengthen the powers of the police.

Mr. Macleod: The hon. Member will have gathered from the reception which was given to the latter part of his inter-

vention that, although we are all at one in loathing the sort of things which are said, we are not at one in the answers which we think should be found. I will put these matters, as they have been put to me, to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Cary) referred to yesterday's debate on the Report of the Pilkington Committee. It is often true, especially at the end of a Session when one wishes to bring reports before the House, that there is a rush in these matters. I acknowledge that. We tried our best to expediate publication of the Pilkington Report. I think that we produced very swiftly indeed the White Paper which formed the subject of the debate.
The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) raised the question of the Closure which was moved on the Consolidated Fund Bill. Indeed, she raised the whole question of allocation of time. I have a feeling that there is something which is not wholly satisfactory here. I am not talking about the particular instance, but a suggestion occurs to me which I hope that the House will find acceptable. I do not want to go too deeply into details, but I tried to check my facts on the occasion in question and I have tried to check them again since. I think that I said to the House that there were at least four, and there might be six, subjects still to be dealt with. They were as follows—the question of probation officers' salaries, to be raised by the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner); the matters to be raised by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross); the matter which the hon. Lady herself wished to raise; and, although she has forgotten this, the question of world security, which the hon. and learned Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) wished to raise. Further, there was a possibility that other hon. Members would wish to raise questions, because notice is not necessarily given. The hon. Lady will recall that she herself gave notice—I am sure that she will be fair about this—only after the debate had started—in fact, at 9 p.m.

Miss Herbison: It was earlier than that.

Mr. Macleod: However that may be, it was after the debate had started. I am absolutely certain that the time taken— I must avoid using the word "allocated"; the point made yesterday was a fair one —of 30 hours is longer than has ever happened before, as far as we can trace, on the Consolidated Fund and amounts to no less than five full days on the Floor of the House.
One of the reasons why we found ourselves in this situation, although I make no complaint about it, was that some of the earlier debates ran considerably longer than the time we had suggested to the House. Hon. Members will remember that when I announced business— this business, because it came on a Monday, was announced twice on two successive Thursdays—I said that it was hoped that the debates on Southern Rhodesia and on the case of Mr. Rhydderch, of Birmingham, would take about half a day. In fact, they took a full parliamentary day, up to about 10 p.m.
I come now to the suggestion which I think I should make. We have a Select Committee on Procedure. I think that it would be of great advantage for the future if we discussed in this Committee whether it would be right to allocate time to subjects on the Consolidated Fund Bill, in the same way as Mr. Speaker allocates time for the Adjournment debates which we will be having on Friday.

Mr. G. Thomas: That would not be fair.

Mr. Macleod: I assure hon. Members that this would be more fair to them, because there would then be no risk of hon. Members being out out. If, in these circumstances, the main debate of the evening were on London's homeless, it would be perfectly proper to allot 6, 8 or 10 hours or whatever might be appropriate. Some discussion on these lines might prove fruitful.

Miss Alice Bacon: In support of what my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) said, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it was remarkable that the Closure was moved immediately at the end of a debate promoted by the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), which

the Minister who replied to it said was nothing whatever to do with his Ministry but was a local government affair, and immediately before the question of the probation service to be raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner)? Was this because the Patronage Secretary feared the wrath of the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth more than that of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West?

Mr. Macleod: I do not know—I must ask my right hon. Friend for comparative judgments in that matter—

Sir B. Janner: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House why the debate was stopped when there were still four or five hours to go before it would be necessary to overlook the following day? Is he aware that it is because the Executive is taking this kind of action that we want a proper understanding before the Adjournment?

Mr. Macleod: I acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman was—and this is not true of all hon. Members who then wished to speak—in the Chamber all night, wishing to speak, and I am very sorry that he was not able to do so. I understand that there is a possibility that he may be able to speak on has subject tonight. If so, that will be very good. But, frankly, I do not take the view—nor, and I make the point again, did the Socialist Government when they were in similar circumstances, and moved Closures at midnight and at one o'clock in the morning—that it is necessary, in these debates, to keep the whole House, and all those who work in it, until the next day's business begins to run on us at about two o'clock in the afternoon.

Mr. Ross: The remedy offered is surely unfair, in that it relates to subjects. The rights that pertain under the Consolidated Fund Bill are Members' rights. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will think again of the ability of a Minister in timing his reply, and the right of Mr. Speaker to see someone who has indicated that he has prepared something that he wishes to raise, and get a solution in that way.

Mr. Macleod: That might be a very valuable idea, and it is conceivable that


we could find a way of relating it to both Members and subjects. I should not have thought that this was beyond the wit of the Select Committee, but we can consider that matter.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: Can my right hon. Friend explain to the House why it was that the Opposition did not vote against that Closure?

Mr. Macleod: It is true that the Opposition did not vote against the Closure. Incidentally, one can also make the point that a member of the Opposition tried to count the House out on the Bill, but I do not think that that would have been regarded with much enthusiasm by hon. Members on either side.
The question of Standing Order No. 112 was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates). Perhaps I could make one thing clear— because, of course, we are linking this to particular days in September. The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) implied that I had announced that we would return for three days. I have not announced anything of the sort, nor have I said that we shall return, or any particular time when we would return if the circumstances arose.
I want to make it quite clear that the Standing Order operates from the moment we rise. To take a specific point put to me in conversation, it has been assumed by everyone that in no circumstances could we return before the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conference. That is not so. Standing Order No. 112 would enable us to return, if necessary, a few days after we have risen. I make that point, because it is important to realise that the Standing Order begins to operate from Friday next, assuming that the House accepts this Motion.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) put with great sincerity his views on the matter on which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will answer Questions tomorrow, and I will convey the hon. Member's questions to my right hon. Friend. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Rosts) has displayed such a lack of faith in the Conservative Government, but no doubt he will return refreshed after an interval

to torment us again, though I do not suppose that he will acquire much faith in the meantime.
The right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) referred to the Leonardo da Vinci cartoon and asked whether there is specific authority from Parliament for such use of the Civil Contingencies Fund. The answer is that there is such authority in general, but not, of course, in particular. There never has been. The point of the Civil Contingencies Fund is that this sort of operation—and, again, I do not argue the merits—can be carried out in advance of full parliamentary approval, which is later conveyed by a Supplementary Estimate and, in due course, by the Consolidated Fund itself.
The authority in this matter, which I quoted earlier, is the Miscellaneous Financial Provisions Act, 1955, when Parliament discussed and endorsed the need for such a fund, and fixed its limit. Therefore, the authority is, in effect, the authority of Parliament itself. I also make a point that this Fund, apart from being used for very many purposes indeed, has been used repeatedly since the war. I gave examples over the last two years, but examples of its use by both sides to finance special grants to purchase works of art in advance of the presentation of a Supplementary Estimate run back for a number of years.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mrs. McLaughlin) spoke of Short Bros, and Harland in the context of the unemployment situation in Northern Ireland. As she knows, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation has just returned—I believe, yesterday—from a visit to Northern Ireland, where he had discussions with those concerned with the aircraft industry. Her Majesty's Government's policy towards Short Bros, is to wait upon decisions on the aircraft requirements, but I will give my hon. Friend an undertaking that those decisions will be taken as soon as possible; and that I will convey her anxiety to my right hon. Friend.
The hon. Member for Barking, apart from raising the question with which I think I have dealt, about how far the Home Secretary will be able to go on


the general question of the recent disturbing riots when he comes before the House tomorrow, raised a matter with which I have some familiarity although, as he correctly surmised, not in detail. That is the question of the Maroons, in Jamaica, the descendants of slaves, who, for the reasons he outlined, have special historical claims. I will not attempt to dredge out of my memory as an ex-Colonial Secretary the impromptu answer, and I am sure that he will understand that, but I will undertake myself to write to him on the subject, and to go immediately into the points he put before the House.
To take just the one question of Welsh leaseholds—

Mr. Driberg: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said, but would he deal with the procedural point I raised? Is he going to move to suspend the rule on the later debate?

Mr. Macleod: I had not planned to do that. I always think that for a debate of this nature, on the Common Market, suspension of the rule makes for the least satisfactory form of debate. It puts off the final contributions that are made. I had not intended, even if it were in order—and I imagine that it would have to be a manuscript Amendment—

Mr. Hector Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman has very properly given a number of undertakings to various hon. Members as to what he will do during the Recess. Will he undertake to press on the new Secretary of State for Scotland the disaster that is overtaking Scotland in the form of increasing unemployment, and ask him to make a statement of plans of a properly constructive Character to deal with that situation?

Mr. Macleod: I will certainly put to him the points which have been made in this discussion, particularly by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, West asked about Welsh leaseholds and I think that he knows the position. The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs put forward, I think to the Welsh Grand Committee, on 18th July, the whole question of the study of the problems of

renewal of ground leases and said that it would take some time. The hon. Member for Cardiff, West will not, therefore, be surprised when I say Chat I have nothing to comment in advance of that today.
The last point I wish to make concerns the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. Wise), the hon. Member for Cardiff, West and a number of others. They asked that if we have to come back—and I must emphasise again that we are discussing a hypothetical situation, as the House appreciates—and we invoke Standing Order No. 112, there should be adequate time in which to discuss the important matter they raised. There are, at that time of the year, certain difficulties, to put it mildly. All the parties are busily engaged and, while no one denies for a moment the over-riding importance of this matter, I must reserve for the Government the question whether we should return.
However, I can give the undertaking that, especially this year, we will look most carefully at all the representations made to us under Standing Order No. 112.

Mr. William Warbey: Can the Leader of the House give a specific assurance on a matter which is worrying my hon. Friends? Can he give an assurance—in view of the fundamental constitutional importance of the question of Britain's entry into the Common Market, involving, as it does, the transfer of legislative powers to a non-elected body—that no attempt will be made to obtain Parliamentary approval by means of a vote for the conditions of entry into the Common Market in any debate during the Recess?

Mr. Macleod: I would like, if I may, to leave the answer to that, because it is important that the words I use are carefully used. I would rather leave it to the debate which is just about to follow and which, I hope, the House will now be ready to begin.

Mr. Herbert Butler: On a point of order. May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker? In my constituency last night there was considerable uproar and I have been sitting here all day trying to bring to the attention of the House important points


which affect my constituency. I appreciate that many hon. Members have claims on the time of the House, but I notice that some hon. Members have secured time for an Adjournment debate on Friday. I must ask the House to give me an opportunity, at least of a few minutes, to say what my constituents are thinking about this matter.

Mr. Speaker: I do not observe the hon. Member's point of order. I understand his difficulty, but it is not a point of order. I might make this suggestion. If other opportunities do not arise—and I am not sure that I am right in remembering all the Adjournment debates which are to be taken—perhaps there might be an opportunity for the hon. Member to speak in that particular debate.

Mr. H. Butler: There may be an opportunity for me to speak in the Adjournment debate, but surely it is unfair that I should be second to someone else in an Adjournment debate concerning my constituency.

Mr. Speaker: There is some difficulty about that. Had the hon. Member applied for an Adjournment debate I would have considered his application along with the others. That, to the best of my knowledge, he did not do.

Mr. G. Brown: I can speak again only by the leave of the House. I hope that I may be allowed to do so, only to thank the Leader of the House for the way in which he has met most of the points put to him during this discussion by my hon. Friends and me. I wish, in particular, to express my appreciation to him for the arrangements that he is making for the Home Secretary to make a statement tomorrow on the urgent matter of the incitement to racial hatred and disaffection. We may yet have representations to make and we reserve our right to do so, but I thank the Leader of the House for making those arrangements.
May I now appeal to the whole House, since we have had a long discussion, to remember that we have an important debate ahead of us? This may well be the last occasion on which any voice from this House can be heard in Brussels before decisions are taken. Any further debate might well be after those decisions are taken. I submit, therefore,

that some words from this House tonight would not only be in order, but are urgently necessary and I appeal to hon. Members now to let us proceed to debate the Common Market.

Mr. Herbert W. Bowden: Mr. Herbert W. Bowden (Leicester, South-West) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. CHICHESTER-CLARK: Mr. CHICHESTER-CLARK and Mr. MARTIN MCLAREN were appointed Tellers for the Ayes, but no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Noes, Mr. SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.

Question put accordingly and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House, at its rising on Friday, do adjourn till Thursday, 25th October, at Eleven o'clock.

PUBLIC ORDER ACT, 1936 (AMENDMENT)

5.58 p.m.

Mr. T. L. Iremonger: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Public Order Act. 1936.
The Bill seeks to add 12 words to Section 5 of the Act and I think that I can best explain it to the House by reading that Section, indicating the 12 words I wish to add and where they would be inserted. Section 5 reads:
Any person who in any public place or at any public meeting uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour"—
and I wish to add—
or words inciting hatred of any racial group of Her Majesty's subjects"—
and the Section continues—
with intent to provoke a breach of the peace or whereby a breach of the peace is likely to be occasioned, shall be guilty of an offence.
That simply and comprehensively is the entire Bill My Motion gives rise to four questions which the House is bound to consider. First, the House must ask itself whether there should be a limit to free speech at all and the answer to that is obviously "Yes", otherwise the House would not have put on the Statute Book Section 5 of the Public Order Act. The second question is whether, if there should be a limit, a line can be drawn.


Again, the answer is obviously "Yes", because a line is drawn in that Section and the criterion accepted is that the limit is reached when public disorder is likely to be provoked. Thirdly, one has to ask, if we are to draw a line, are we satisfied that the line drawn at the present point is rightly drawn? Is it the best of the only possible point?
It is my submission to the House that recent events oblige us to answer "No" to that question. Therefore, if we are not satisfied that the line is rightly drawn, we have to ask, fourthly, whether it is possible to give legislative effect to a line drawn at a different point. My answer to that, quite frankly and honestly, is that I am not quite sure whether it is possible to do so. But there is one thing that I am far more sure about and that is that the House ought to try to do so. This Motion asks no more of the House than that it should accept that duty and the Bill I am seeking to introduce is no more than a cockshy, which the House should consider.
What the Bill seeks to do is to specify incitement to racial hatred as being in a class by itself, distinguishable from other kinds of threatening, abusive or insulting words. May I explain what I mean? I should not seek to prevent, and I am sure that the House should not seek to prevent, anyone publicly advocating the abolition of the monarchy and the setting up of a republican form of government. I should not agree with him. I should regard it as a somewhat old-fashioned and ill-conceived notion. But I regard it as one of the burdens of being a free man, free to advocate my own follies if I choose, to have to listen to the follies of others when they advocate them.
On the other hand, I should seek to prevent, and this House and the common law do seek to prevent, anyone publicly preaching sedition or inciting people to march on Buckingham Palace and commit arson or violence against the person of the Sovereign. I should make a distinction, and this House does make a distinction. Likewise, I should not seek to prevent, and the House should not seek to prevent, anyone publicly proclaiming the merits—if any there be of anarchy or atheism or nihilism or National Socialism or Fascism or Com-

munism or any other "ism" in so far as they might present themselves as political or moral philosophies. I should have to put up with it as others have to put up with my publicly proclaimed support for my right hon. Friends.
But there is something that I do want to prevent and I think that this House should try to prevent. I want to prevent the public expressions of opinions that are calculated of themselves to be unbearable to those who hear them and which such people should not be asked to endure or to tolerate. After all, we must have some regard to history and the record of what has happened and the things that we know about. We must recall how literally millions of people have died, and the way in which, God help them, millions have had to survive and go on living. These are the things we must take into account in making a legislative distinction.
If I may seek an analogy from further afield, I should want to prevent in Kenya, for example, an African nationalist saying to a crowd, "Let us take an oath to murder all the white men and their women and children". This is another racial minority group. Consequently, I should not want it to be allowed for an African nationalist to say, "Mau Mau was right", for that is exactly the same thing as saying, "Let us murder all the whites and their women and children".

Mr. Leslie Hale: Suppose he said, "Kenyatta was right"?

Mr. Iremonger: The hon. Member will no doubt deploy that very fine distinction when the Bill is introduced on Second Reading. I think that I am entitled to claim, as I do not want to detain the House, that it is conventional that ordinary exchanges across the Floor do not take place under the Ten Minutes Rule.
I do not think that I am normally ungenerous in giving way and I am not trying here to trade upon a special advantage. I should not like it to be said in Kenya, "Mau Mau was right", because I do not think that any Kenya settler should be asked to listen to that and keep the peace upon pain of arrest by the police. I want to prevent in the United Kingdom similar incitements to racial hatred.
I do not think that any Jew should be asked to hear—do not let us quibble about whether he would be better advised to stay away from the meeting— the words, "Hitler was night". I believe that to speak those words is a greater offence than to be violent on hearing them. I am asking leave to introduce the Bill so that the House may consider in what way we might best give legislative effect to that idea, and that is my purpose.
Perhaps what I say may be more acceptable to the House because I do not happen to be Jewish myself. I am a pure-bred English mongrel, and, as W. S. Gilbert would say, that is greatly to my credit, I am sure. I only mention it because I hope that it may be of some comfort to our own Jewish people in this country to know that we who are not Jewish have been as affronted by recent pathological outbursts, as anyone else could have been, and that Jewish people need not feel that they are the only ones who feel insulted by these things being said.
I know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has the problem of amending the Public Order Act very closely in mind and under consideration because he told the House so, as reported in column 87 of HANSARD on 19th July, in answer to a Question that I put to him. I know that it will be exercising his mind and agonising his conscience during the Recess. I hope that the House will, by giving me leave to introduce the Bill, signify its very urgent desire that he should now succeed in evolving an amending Bill himself.
I am only too well aware of the very great practical difficulties and the very sincere objections in principle to legislation of this kind. Over six centuries of its life this House of Commons has been moved by panic and anger to put on the Statute Book many ill-conceived Measures. We should not be moved today by the disreputable tactics of young Trotskyist ruffians into censoring political views of which they disapprove, even if we disapprove of them ourselves, simply because those views can be equated speciously with intolerable incitement to racial hatred. I am aware of that danger. But I consider a greater danger to be that we should appear to give tacit acceptance to that incitement when incitement genuinely exists. All

political decisions are to some extent a choice of evils, and I suggest that in this case the lesser evil is for this House to make at least an honest attempt to legislate.
Most hon. Members believed that the Nazi policy in Germany towards the Jews was so hateful that they were prepared, rather than allow it to prevail, to be killed themselves; and, far more painfully and significantly for most Englishmen, they were themselves prepared to kill, or be accessories in killing, other human beings whom, in normal circumstances, they would not have wanted to harm at all. I think that hon. Members who have had in their lifetime to make that decision should surely not be too squeamish just now in bringing their minds to bear on the issues raised in the Bill. It is in that spirit that I ask the House to give me leave to introduce the Bill.

6.10 p.m.

Mr. R. T. Paget: I rise only to say that we ought not to make this amendment of the law, not in the least on the ground of liberal free speech but because it is fundamentally misconceived.
The hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) said that we should remember history. Of course we remember history. When Oswald Mosley appears, that is of itself a racial insult. It does not matter now in the least whether at that meeting he insulted the Jews or the Jamaicans. His presence there was the insult. It is his presence that is resented. Before anybody hears which he has to say, it is inevitable that there will be a riot. Equally, if somebody appears under the slogan of the National Socialists, that of itself is a racial insult in the context of history as we know it.
Simply to say that these people may not say particular things, when one knows that the whole things they stand for are these very things, will not solve anything. There is one quite simple and permanent solution to the Mosley trouble —do not give him police protection next time. I do not know of any other solution.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 12 (Motion for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business) and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Iremonger, Mr. Skeet, Wing Commander Bullus, Lady Gammans, Mrs. Hill, Sir B. Janner, Mr. E. Johnson, Sir D. Kaberry Mr. Percival, Mr. Russell, Sir W. Wakefield, and Mr. Weitzman.

PUBLIC ORDER ACT, 1936 (AMENDMENT)

Bill to amend the Public Order Act, 1936, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 141.]

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

6.13 p.m.

The First Secretary of State (Mr. R. A. Butler): It is almost a year since the House approved the Government's decision
to make formal application under Article 237 of the Treaty of Rome in order to initiate negotiations to see if satisfactory arrangements can be made to meet the special interests of the United Kingdom, of the Commonwealth and of the European Free Trade Association.
It is, therefore, an appropriate occasion to review events since then and to see where our negotiations now stand.
The House will be aware that this debate takes place just when our delegation in Brussels is closely engaged in the most important and crucial negotiations and in the final stage to determine the general outline of the terms on which we should accede to the European Economic Community. The time, therefore, is not yet ripe to consider whether or not the outcome of these negotiations will be such as will constitute "the satisfactory arrangements" to which we referred a year ago. Moreover, it would be embarrasing to our delegation to debate in detail the substance of the problems still to be solved. Nevertheless, I will try to serve the House, as the Opposition have asked for this debate, by explaining in broad and general terms how far we have got, what matters remain to be settled, and how the Government, so far as we can see

at this stage, intend to handle future developments.
Historically and geographically we have always been part of Europe. Indeed, many of the greatest struggles in our history have been undergone to take part in or encourage the concert of Europe or the union of peoples. I learned myself, when I was British chairman of the O.E.E.C. for four years from 1951 onwards, that it was regarded as natural and a natural rôle for Britain to play a full part in Europe not only economically, but politically. Now we have the great opportunity of taking a further step forward, provided that we can, at the same time, protect the vital interests of our Commonwealth since we have no intention of deserting them.
I will thus turn, first, to the main issues so far covered by our negotiations which are those concerned with Commonwealth trade. There are, first, our dependent territories and the newly independent Commonwealth countries in Africa. For most of these, the important question is: what arrangements can be made for their trade in tropical products? I am glad to say that the Six have agreed in principle that association with the Common Market would be an appropriate solution to the problems of the independent and near-independent Commonwealth countries in Africa and the Caribbean. They have also agreed that the great majority of our dependent territories should also be regarded as eligible for association.
It is common ground that these Commonwealth associates should not be, as latecomers, less favourably treated than the existing associated States as regards trade with the Community. The Commonwealth associates will enjoy access not only into the United Kingdom, but into the whole of the enlarged Community on the same terms as the existing associates. Further consideration will have to be given to the arrangements to meet the interests of Cyprus and our European dependencies, Gibraltar and Malta. The arrangements for Malaya, Singapore and our Borneo dependencies have hitherto been awaiting the proposals for creating greater Malaysia to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations referred this afternoon. Hong Kong's rapidly developing trade in


cotton textiles and other industrial products would require special consideration, as will also the problems raised with respect to the High Commission Territories, by their incorporation in the Customs union with South Africa.
The question of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, in which I am naturally interested, is still under consideration. From an early stage we have been considering the trade problems of the Asian Commonwealth countries, India, Pakistan and Ceylon, on the basis that they would not become associated with the Common Market, in the same way as our dependencies and African and Caribbean Commonwealth countries. But the Six have shown recognition of the key importance of these countries and of the pressing need to make arrangements which will enable them to expand their exports, reduce their adverse balance of payments and earn the foreign exchange necessary to finance their development programmes. The Six have proposed that to achieve these aims the enlarged Community should negotiate comprehensive agreements with each of the three territories by 1966.
There are also transitional arrangements which deal with cotton textiles, and in the field of tropical products the Six have already agreed to the suspension of the common tariff on a number of items of importance to these countries. The abolition of the common external tariff on tea is, in our view, of crucial importance to these countries. In all this we are in the closest consultation with the Governments of the three countries and are taking full account of their views and anxieties.
So much for the various dependencies and parts of the Commonwealth that I have mentioned. More difficult issues are raised by the trading problems of the three old members of the Commonwealth, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

Mr. Harold Wilson: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but there is some doubt about this from Press reports. Also the right hon. Gentleman's own phrase was capable of two interpretations. He said that the abolition of the external tariff on tea is of vital importance to those countries. Does that mean, as has sometimes been

reported, that the Six have now agreed to have a nil tariff for tea?

Mr. Butler: I understood, before I rose to speak, that a final decision had not been taken about that, and that is why I phrased it in that way.
As I say, more difficult issues are raised by the trade problems of the three old members of the Commonwealth, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The major items are raw materials, semi-manufactures, manufactured goods, temperate foodstuffs and certain processed foodstuffs. Many raw materials already enter the Common Market duty-free and trade in them would be unaffected by our accession. We have secured the agreement of the Six to the elimination or reduction of the common external tariff on a number of minor raw materials and an assurance that we shall be able to import duty free sufficient quantities of wood pulp to meet our requirements.
There remains yet unsettled the question of arrangements to be made about aluminium, newsprint, lead and zinc, together with a number of materials of lesser importance. On manufactured goods, exports of which are mainly of importance to Canada, I have nothing to add this afternoon to the provisional solution which has been negotiated and publicly announced.
As the House knows, Commonwealth temperate foodstuffs provide the most difficult and crucial problem of all. Negotiations on this subject are going on in Brussels today and I cannot, therefore, add very much to what my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal told the House on Monday. This matter is being considered in Brussels under two heads: first, the long-term engagements; and, secondly, the transitional arrangements which will be necessary on our accession and until the long-term arrangements come into effect.
The Six have proposed, in the context of the enlarged Community, to take an early initiative, if possible in 1963, to secure long-term arrangements on a broad international basis for the principal agricultural products. At the same time, the Six have accepted the importance of reaching an understanding on the purposes of such agreements and on


the points to be covered in them. Consideration has been given to the position which would arise if international agreements did not prove practicable, and the six Governments have declared their readiness to conclude agreements for the same purposes with those countries which might wish to do so, in particular, of course, the Commonwealth countries.
Also, we have discussed the question of price and production policy for these commodities in an enlarged Community, which would be of major importance in determining how self-sufficient in temperate foodstuffs the Community became and how far there would be room for traditional imports from third countries, in particular from the Commonwealth.
Consideration of the transitional period is being resumed today, and there is nothing further I can say about that.
All these problems, which are, as I have said, the most difficult in the negotiations, are complicated by the fact that the Community's price policies are still in course of development. We have to strike a balance between the interests of farmers, including British farmers, in an enlarged Community and the interests of traditional exporters, in particular Commonwealth exporters; and in so doing we must recognise that we should not attempt to freeze the patterns of trade.
Closely allied to this question of the major Commonwealth temperate foodstuffs is the question of trade in processed agricultural commodities, for instance, canned and dried fruits from Australia and canned salmon from Canada, the most important examples. Although, individually, trade in these commodities is not as large as that in the major temperate foodstuffs such as wheat, mutton and lamb, there are individual items which are of particular importance especially to special communities, notably in Australia. In total, Australia's exports of these commodities are of very great importance. However, in many cases the United Kingdom is the sole export market. We are, therefore, endeavouring to ensure that by reductions in the Community's tariff or by tariff quotas, as may be appropriate, the interests of Commonwealth producers in this field are suitably protected.
The second of the main issues to which the resolution of last August referred related to the United Kingdom itself. The first and foremost of these is the question of United Kingdom agriculture. As an agricultural Member, I am glad that we have reached agreement with the Six on the question of annual reviews of agriculture analogous to those which we hold in this country and on the question of a general assurance for farmers in the Community.
First, it is agreed that the Community itself should hold an annual review and that each member country should, in addition, if it so desires, have its own annual review. These reviews will be based on such facts as trends of profitability in the agriculture industry, the trends of prices and costs within the Community, and an assessment of their implications for production, consumption, imports and exports.
The result of any national reviews, together with any observation which the Government concerned may wish to put forward about them, will be forwarded to the European Commission and taken into account by it in preparing the Community's annual review. The Commission will also carry out consultations with representatives of interested organisations, particularly of farmers. In carrying out its own annual review, the Community will, therefore, be able to have before it not only the facts but the views of the agricultural community and of the Governments concerned.
When the Community annual review is itself completed, the Commission must report to the Council of Ministers the results and make appropriate proposals to the Council in the light of these results. Moreover, the Community has also accepted that there should be a general assurance with regard to farming incomes and has agreed upon the procedure of implementing this assurance.
Thus, if the annual review shows that remuneration in the agricultural industry does not ensure for the farmers of the Community or of particular areas of it —that is the wording—a fair standard of living in conformity with the objectives of Article 39 of the Treaty, the Commission will take up the question either on its own initiative or at the request of a member Government. The Commission will submit to the Council


of Ministers proposals to remedy this situation and the necessary decisions will be taken by the Ministers themselves.
In short, we have secured that the procedure of annual reviews to which we are accustomed should be adopted by the Community and that, in particular, it should be used to secure the objective of a fair standard of living for the farming community which is laid down in Article 39 of the Treaty. We ourselves will be able to continue our own annual review. The Government will be able to form their own opinion on the state of the farming industry, and we shall be full participants in the decisions reached by the Community with regard to its annual review.

Mr. R. H. Turton: After our annual review, will we be able to take any steps towards bringing the level of prosperity of our agriculture up to the right level?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. That is a matter which has not yet been decided. I cannot make any further statement on that today. The fact that we shall be full participants in the decisions reached by the Community will enable us to exercise our full influence in this direction.

Mr. Paul Williams: If there were to be a discrepancy of view between the United Kingdom Government and the Commission on what was a fair price and how it should be implemented, what would then be the result of the discussion?

Mr. Butler: That depends upon the voting procedures which are finally agreed in the Community itself. One of the troubles about this debate is that we are not in a final situation on these matters.
While this agreement will give the agricultural community a general assurance of great value, the particular problems of individual commodities such as eggs, pig meat and horticulture still remain to be settled. Other subjects such as milk and milk products, mutton and lamb, beef, veal and sugar, on which the Six have not yet decided on a common policy, are under consideration.
In this field, we and the Six are faced with the dilemma that, where the Six have approved regulations in hard-fought compromises at the beginning of

this year, they will need to take account of changes in supply and demand which would arise from our accession and that of other members of E.F.T.A. Where the Six have not yet agreed on a policy for a particular commodity they have to consider the problem not only on the basis of the Community as it now exists but having regard also to the possibility of its enlargement. Therefore, it is impossible to reach final conclusions on the commodities or to take any final decision as to whether we can honestly say that we are safeguarding the interests of agriculture until we have gone further.
Dealing further with the matters affecting the United Kingdom, I remind the House of the Economic Union Articles of the Treaty. These are the general provisions of the Treaty of Rome relating to economic and social policy. Before our negotiations opened these provisions had been studied in detail, and, in his opening statement of 10th October, the Lord Privy Seal was able to confirm that the whole range of provisions of the Treaty dealing with the free movement of persons, services and capital, and collaboration in economic and social policy, was acceptable to us in principle.
We have since informed the Six that, subject to certain details of timing and administrative application, we are able to accept the arrangement which the Six have come to between themselves since the Treaty entered into force. There is one matter, however, which I would like to mention, and that is that the Treaty of Rome contains provisions that men and women should receive equal pay for equal work. We shall need to consider further with the Six the period within which we could arrange for any necessary adjustments to be made here. The same is being done within the countries of the Six, and we shall be consulting both sides of industry about this in due course.
The resolution of last August referred to the undertaking that we would not accede to the Community until satisfactory arrangements had been made to meet the legitimate interests of the other members of the European Free Trade Association. That undertaking still stands. Norway and Denmark have announced their intention to accede to the Community and have already started their negotiations. The neutral


members have announced their intention to seek association with the enlarged Community, and two of them—Sweden and Austria—have already made their opening statements. Portugual has also applied to open discussions with the Community. As regards the two other European communities, our negotiations to accede to the European Atomic Community were opened on 3rd July and those with the Coal and Steel Community on 17th July.
I should like to take this opportunity to say something about political union, which is of interest to the House. We welcome the efforts which the Six are making now to achieve closer political union in Europe, and we shall join them wholeheartedly in this task if we become members of the Community. As the Lord Privy Seal has explained to the House, the discussions on political union have been continued by the Six Governments quite separately from our negotiations with them. We have not taken an active part in these political discussions, but we have been kept fully informed of developments. We should, naturally, expect to have the opportunity of expressing our views and to be properly consulted on any draft political treaty at the appropriate time.
As regards the substance of such a union, we are not being asked to join a federal union and thus to surrender sovereignty. As was explained to the House on 18th July, the six countries are considering texts in which any decision taken must be by unanimous vote. There is no ground to fear that the position of the Sovereign would be threatened by a political union, or that the powers of Parliament would be circumvented.
The same can, of course, be said about our religious liberties. Protestant fears have been aroused by the theory that this is a treaty with Rome, but this is not so. The Treaty of the six nations happened to be signed at Rome, but, as a churchman, I can say, in response to a considerable amount of correspondence which I and other Members have received, that there is no question that the freedom of worship which we enjoy will be in any way endangered.
Perhaps the word "union" leads to misunderstanding. We. together with

the six member Governments of the Commission, have been members of the Western European Union for more than seven years. The Treaty of Western European Union contains provisions for majority voting, but we have never had any reason to regret having signed it. The Treaty of European Political Union as at present conceived would provide for unanimous voting on all matters of policy, and changes would require our consent.
I have nothing more to add this afternoon on the subject of the legal aspects of the Community and our possible entrance to it, except to state that we are definitely proposing to publish a White Paper on this subject a little later in the year when our examination of these intricate matters has been concluded.

Mr. H. Wilson: Including the Parliamentary aspects?

Mr. Butler: Including the Parliamentary aspects, the effect on the courts and the general effect of Article 189.
This, then, is the stage that we have reached. We cannot say at the moment what the result of the current phase of the negotiations will be, or what the elements or the main outlines of the terms on which we might accede to the E.E.C. may be, but I am sure that in this debate we should all, whatever our views, like to wish well to our negotiators and particularly to my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal, who has shown himself so adept at this task.
Commonwealth Governments will, of course, be fully consulted and informed of progress throughout the course of our negotiations. The state of progress reached will be the major topic for consideration at the Prime Ministers' conference in September. I need not add to what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said this afternoon about the powers to recall Parliament under the Standing Order. It would be premature to take any decision on this until we have got further in the negotiations and seen what the result is and what the timetable will be. Nevertheless, I suggest that there are some broad considerations which we might all bear in mind during the course of this debate and later while we are considering what our decision should be.
First, the existence of the European Economic Community is an important new factor in European history. Those of us both in this country and in the Commonwealth who have had direct experience of two major world wars cannot but regard its creation, leading to a healing of the traditional enmity between France and Germany, as a most important and welcome development.
Secondly, in considering the vital question of Commonwealth trade, it is important to recognise that the present concept of this trade is in a period of evolution. The old countries of the Commonwealth have shown considerable interest in the making of international agreements. Thus, it may well be necessary in our own interests and in the interests of our traditional suppliers to have resort to changes in traditional practices whether we join the Common Market or not.
Lastly, I wish to remind the House of the economic and political future which membership of the Community has to offer. If we were to join the Community, this would strengthen the forces within it in favour of liberal economic policies designed to expand world trade. This would tend to make the policies outward looking. At the same time, the enlargement of the Common Market by the inclusion of new members would create an economic union of over 200 million people and would release forces tending to develop world trade. The existence of such a powerful economic unit would also, especially in view of the bold initiative taken by President Kennedy, lead to negotiations for the lowering of tariffs on a global basis.
Both we and the Commonwealth, as we weigh up the pros and cons, would do well to assess the advantage of such developments as these. We are bound by close and affectionate ties of kinship, history and trade with the Commonwealth. It is worth making a great effort to study and conserve their interests so that firmly based on the confidence of the Commonwealth we can give Europe help and partnership in a period of special importance to prosperity and peace.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. George Brown: I am sure the outstanding impression which

will have been left in the minds of almost all hon. Members who have listened to the First Secretary is just how much still remains to be negotiated before we can get even a glimmer of the terms on which we would be asked to make this decision. Almost everything he discussed was still completely open. Even the broadest principles are still to be settled in many cases, let alone the important details.
The great worry in my mind, as in the minds of many others, is not that we are applying to join the Common Market and trying to work it out, but the tremendous sense of hurry which one seems to feel in the mind of the Government to get it finished in a very short time, although so much is still left to do. In our last debate on this subject, I put a question to the Government which I venture to repeat today. Is there any need to go on giving the impression that we are working against a deadline? The Commonwealth Prime Ministers are coming in September, but there is nothing absolutely sacrosanct about that. There is no reason why that meeting should not be postponed, or that the Prime Ministers should go away and come back again.
If we are to settle the issues which the First Secretary mentioned this afternoon between now and the beginning of September, so much work will be done that very little thought will be given to what is done. One gets the impression that what is likely to happen in order to keep the deadline is that a lot of very woolly, rather vague, ambiguous statements will be written down and able to mean anything or nothing to almost everybody according to how one wants to interpret them. For myself, I would regard that as almost the worst possible outcome of these negotiations.
I am glad that we are discussing this subject today, because I should like that sort of view—if I am right in believing that it is held on both sides of the House —to be very clearly explained and understood outside the House, so that if the Government will not convey it to Brussels, Brussels can hear it direct from the House. We would create a very unhappy situation if the other parties were left to assume that agreements of that kind would automatically carry the


support of either the House or the people. Perhaps it is easier for me to say that, because it is fairly well known that I believe that on balance it would be better for us if we could get in on a reasonable basis. There are a number of reasons why I hold that view. I would have set them out at some length if the debate had started earlier. However, I will give them briefly.
If we could get the right terms, the enlarged Community which would emerge would be politically much better and would be much more likely to be outward looking than a tightly organised "Little Six" would be. The alternative if we do not go in involves the very things from which E.F.T.A. shrank— the organisation of competing trading blocs which would have considerable repercussions in Europe. The consequences which would flow would be not only economic but would be bound to affect N.A.T.O. and Western defence as a whole. When I was in America recently I felt very strongly that the United States—certainly the Administration, but also large areas of the country —was now in the mood for a change in traditional American trade policies and attitudes, and the creation of an enlarged Community would help to bring to fruition discussions which are now going on there.
My fear, which I have expressed before, is that the Commonwealth is not a natural trading bloc. I doubt very much whether it wants to develop that way, and many of its members would regret having to tie themselves in that way.
Finally, the economic consequences to Britain of a barrier to our entry to the Continental market being raised by additional tariffs and the need to organise a competitive bloc against it would probably be a great deal greater than many of us allow for in our discussions.
For reasons like that, on balance I should like to get terms on which we could go in. But having said that and feeling as I do, I do not share what, from the way they present themselves, seems to be the Government's attitude of believing that we have no alternative. It is not true that there is no alternative. The alternative might be

difficult and it might involve some uncomfortable considerations, but there is an alternative and if it had to be faced, it could be faced. If the price were pitched too high, we should have to face it. The new Chancellor of the Exchequer said this fairly clearly in the House the other night when he said something about the world being our parish and indicated that we could look elsewhere for an alternative.
I would feel much happier about these negotiations between now and the beginning of September if I had the impression that that was how Ministers were speaking in Brussels, but I do not have that impression. Nor do I have the impression that they are appearing to give any thought to what the alternative might be and to what it would involve. They do not appear to be working out any plans in order to proceed to the alternative. I have done a good deal of negotiating myself at a different level, and I would have always thought it rather ridiculous to allow myself to get pushed nearer and nearer to the deadline without those with whom I was negotiating understanding that I was making some plans for the possibility of the negotiations breaking down. Whether they mean it or not, the Government are getting themselves into an almost untenable weakness, even from the point of view of those who would like to go in, for they are allowing those with whom they are negotiating to assume that in the end the Government will have to make concessions because they will have got themselves into an impossible position datewise and in every other way.
The main issue to which we should direct attention today is which are the areas where the price could be pitched too high and what is the present negotiating position which we have reached in those areas, and therefore what room there is and in what direction, and what changes we want made.

Mr. Arthur Holt: Is the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) prepared to spell out, even in brief outline, what his alternative is? If we had that before us we could then weigh up whether, if the negotiations did not go as well as we would like, we could still accept them.

Mr. Brown: There is already a risk that by the time I sit down, my right


hon. Friend will be rising to wind up, and if I answer that question it will be a certainty. Indeed, we might find ourselves on our feet together. The hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt), who has clearly not done it, should read the leader today in that distinguished organ, the Guardian, when he will find a clear indication of what the alternative might be. While I am finishing my speech, he might care to go and have a look at it.
What are the main areas where the price could be too high? Some people are still too worried with the degree of political commitment which might be involved in adhering to the Treaty, that is to say, the federal content of the Treaty. That is not my view, as I have explained before, but nobody's fear will have been assuaged by what the First Secretary had to say about that just now. He again used this piece of double talk about our "wholehearted support" of the political aims of the Six. That is a very ambiguous and misleading phrase. It could lead to assumptions that, at the point of going in, we are accepting federal commitments. It could lead to the assumption that we are prepared to accept a surrender of sovereignty which I do not believe the House or the nation is prepared to accept, whatever its merits. It is time that Ministers stopped using terms of that sort and talked much more clearly about limitations.
The real issue on this point is whether if we go in now we will be able to influence any future political development. The First Secretary referred to the unanimity rule. It is clear that this is all bound up with the question of voting rights, as are some of the economic issues still to be settled. One of the areas which the Government have not even begun to discuss with the Six is this very involved question of what the voting rights would be, what the new majorities would be, and how they would be made up. Yet this is one of the absolutely critical areas. Unless we can be clear that the new arrangement for majorities and the new weighting will avoid a situation in which we can be automatically voted down by prearranged majorities elsewhere, certainly it will be pitching the price too high, and I should want to know a good deal

more about the arrangements on that before I felt able to give any endorsement to whatever the Government brought out of it.
Some people are worried about the retention of our national ability to plan the economy. We have had assurances from the Lord Privy Seal and others that that ability will remain in our national hands. I hope that these assurances will appear as part of some document. It will be totally unsatisfactory later to have to rely simply on the assurances given in this House, backed by nothing else.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I think that my right hon. Friend is reading too much into what the Lord Privy Seal said. As I understood it, the right hon. Gentleman never said that it would not interfere with our power to plan the economy. All that he said was that it would not interfere with our power to nationalise a specific industry, which is a different thing.

Mr. Brown: I know that that is different, but my impression is that the belief is held that it would not do the other either. All I am saying—and this will put me on all fours with my hon. Friends; and whatever hon. Gentlemen opposite may think, my hon. Friends know what I mean—is that we must insist on a clear recognition that we retain that power. But more than that, we must have some clear understanding of the steps that we would be able to take to maintain the £ hereafter in the event of an attack on our currency. It would be very unsatisfactory if all that we had to rely on were the central banks, leaving them free to decide what strings to attach to any assistance which they may give us at that stage.
There are three main areas in which grave doubts remain. First, British agriculture, and what the First Secretary, even as an agricultural Member, said this afternoon was exceedings unsatisfactory. Secondly, our obligations to the Commonwealth. Thirdly, our undertaking to the E.F.T.A. partners, about which the First Secretary had very little to say.
I deal first with our E.F.T.A. partners. Let us recall the commitment. It is that no one member shall leave E.F.T.A. and join the other organisation unless the


position of each of the others is satisfactorily arranged. It is essential that we give no impression that we are in any way going back on that commitment to our E.F.T.A. partners, if for no other reason than this. Were the negotiations to break down and we had to face an alternative, we would need the loyalty and support of our E.F.T.A. partners. If we were to lose that, the alternative would become that much more difficult to arrange. It is, therefore, paramount that there should be no suspicion about our position in this, or that we think any of them are expendable.
In the end, this boils down to the neutrals. One impression I gained in the United States recently leads me to believe that the British Government are not putting forward anything like a clearly understandable viewpoint on this. People are saying that Austria can be arranged for, and that undertakings have been given to Dr. Gorbach, and that Switzerland can be arranged for, and that France would like her to be. But there is a good deal less warmth about Sweden, and I want to make this plain to the Government who do not seem to appreciate it.
Sweden's relevance to our ability to enter is very powerful indeed. The First Secretary said that Denmark and Norway had decided to accede. They have no more decided to accede than we have, and Norway much less so because she must first have a referendum of her people. If the proposal involved the creating of a tariff barrier against Sweden, with whom at the moment Norway has special free relations both of trade and movement of labour, it is unlikely that the referendum would get through, or even that the Government would be able to put it to the people. Therefore, in that sense Sweden is critical, because Norway in turn is critical to us. Let us not assume that we can go in and get voting rights that would help to protect our position unless Norway and Denmark enter at the same time. The position of the neutrals is therefore tremendously important, and I think that we ought to lay more emphasis on this than we are doing at the moment.
I turn now to home agriculture. There has been an impression abroad, and it

seemed to be reproduced in The Times this morning, that the only problem left in this area is that relating to temperate foodstuffs from the Commonwealth, the implication being that British agriculture has somehow had its problem settled. This in my submission is undiluted nonsense. We have done nothing of the sort. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, when he wound up or intervened in the last debate, set out a whole list, almost as long as my arm, of the things that he would require before he regarded British agriculture as having been satisfactorily taken care of. I will not quote them, but no doubt hon. Members will refresh their minds if they wish to do so.
All that we have had since then is the Lord Privy Seal telling us this vague story, which the First Secretary repeated, about the Community having accepted the provisions of an annual review of agricultural conditions—not an annual price review, but an annual review of agricultural conditions. There is no mystique about the annual review in itself. The consequence of it is what it leads to in terms of changes in agricultural production policy, in an examination of the income of the industry, and in the steps then taken to restore it if it is shown to have fallen below what is established as the appropriate level for this section of our economy.
When the First Secretary was asked about productivity, he said that this was one of the areas still to be settled, but until that area is settled there will be no provision for British agriculture. We could have the most nonsensical situation. We could have academic examinations of agriculture in the Six countries. It would take much longer each year to carry it out, and end in nothing by way of replacing the present price review which our farmers and the industry generally would lose under the proposed arrangements. Here again, I am not saying that arrangements cannot be made. I certainly do not say that agriculture cannot make changes; I think that it can. I do not say that the present pattern of our agricultural production should be frozen. I take the view that, in many ways, it cannot remain as it is. Since the Government changed the 1947 Act it has been getting more and more costly to operate, with the money finding its way into quite


different channels from what was intended, and without producing cheaper food, or more food, or, necessarily, the kind of food that we want.
But to say that agriculture can make changes is one thing; the point is that it must not be left to have to make those changes in an unregulated and ill-thought-out way. The small dairy man, who makes up such a large part of our agriculture, and the specialist producer—the egg man and the pig man—together with the horticulturist, cannot be left to take the calamitous rap by themselves, or be expected to try to adjust themselves to it.
Again, much of what will happen here will depend on our voting rights. We have twice asked the Ministers what the voting arrangements will be in respect of agricultural policies. The other night, in answer to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, the Minister of Agriculture told us that he would require notice of that question. This is like the answer of the right hon. Gentleman about profitability. It is an answer that we have to know. We must know which agricultural questions are subjected to the unanimity rule and which are decided by majority vote— and, in each case, what sort of voting we shall be able to command or bring to our aid in those circumstances.
If the Government are not going to do something far different from this between now and the beginning of next month, or whenever the critical date is, they should tell the farming industry now that they are not proposing to make this a sticking point but are proposing to go in first and see how it all works out afterwards. Frankly, that is my interpretation of what the Minister of Agriculture said the other night. My interpretation is that he had made up his mind that we should go in, and then see what we could do afterwards. If that is so, the Government should tell the industry what their proposals are, so as to enable it to adjust itself to the possibilities.
This would mean several things. It would mean encouraging considerable changes in the marketing and grading of our products in a short time, to enable us to deal with the competitive situation which will arise. It would mean that something would have to be done to enable considerable switches to be made in husbandry. If there is a high price

grain policy in Europe, whatever it does to anybody else it will hit very hard the agricultural livestock producers in this country, who are relying on imported feed of this type. There will have to be some considerable switches in husbandry, and the Government should be thinking about this. They should be warning the industry, and discussing the matter with it. In the end it will probably have to face a considerable contraction in some areas, and it ought to be ready to do this now.
In relation to all these agricultural questions there is nothing that could even remotely be considered as satisfactorily negotiated. It is still as much in the ring —as much a matter requiring negotiation —as any of the questions that have not yet been tackled. To ask us to return in a month's time, when the Government have made no more progress in this matter, would be to put us in an impossible position.
There are many other questions to which we ought to have answers. The First Secretary has told us about the annual agricultural review. Has he any idea—has anybody explained to him— how the result of any review will be translated into action in the Community? Who would do it? Would the Ministers? The only reference we have had is to the Commission taking the matter up with the Council and the Council then considering it. We have had no reference to the practical steps that would then have to follow.
This links up closely with the last item that I want to raise—the question of temperate foodstuffs imported from the Commonwealth. To some extent success in settling one of these problems will aggravate others. A high price policy for European produce will help our large arable producers, but it will hurt the small specialists and also the Commonwealth. It will make the Commonwealth problem more difficult to solve. A low price policy could cause difficulties here, but would make it easier for our Commonwealth friends. It may be this complication which is impelling the Government to leave as many questions affecting home agriculture fox future settlement as they can.
But we must realise that there are co-siderable dangers in this. My right hon.


Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) has a tremendous record in respect of world commodity trade agreements, and he will deal fully with those. I will leave a good deal of that to him. I want to raise only one or two matters. We ought to establish the broad principles that should govern any settlement brought to the House. The first—it remains with us an issue of principle, and we must establish that fact in the House tonight—is that any settlement we make must carry with it the broad general approval of the Prime Ministers' Conference. Hon. Members on this side of the House do not see how that can possibly be evaded. I do not see how the Government can go forward with a settlement that does not do that. I see no way in which we could endorse such a settlement, in the absence of that broad measure of general agreement.
Even under the most favourable settlement that we can arrange there is bound to be a far reaching affect on our relations, trading and otherwise, with the Commonwealth. That cannot be avoided, even if the settlement were sufficiently favourable to got by. There is, therefore, all the more reason why, in this matter, we should be particularly careful to avoid woolly and vague generalities. On the question of agriculture we cannot possibly take refuge in an agreement to agree. We must have spelled out for us what we are doing. The industry must know the terms of what in any case will be a historic decision—a decision that will change the traditional relationships between us and the Commonwealth. It must know the terms of what is being done.
This is the issue of the transitional period, about which we have had no clear statement. I listened carefully to what the Lord Privy Seal said yesterday both in his statement and in answer to Questions. We must know what is to be the critical date. I gather that 1970 is suggested as the date for temperate foodstuffs, but we must know, in relation to other matters, such as the manufacturers of Asian countries, if there is to be a date when there will be an automatic cutting off of the existing preferential arrangements, and we must know clearly whether there is to be, as it were, an escalation downwards in the meantime.
These questions are absolutely critical to an evaluation of any arrangements that we make. Everybody is taking refuge in statements about world commodity agreements taking over, and so providing solutions of these problems in a much wider setting, and no doubt they all sincerely mean what they say. If these negotiations are to start even in 1963, as the Lord Privy Seal said yesterday, and are carried on against a background of declining preferential arrangements, which will have reached zero by 1970 or some other date, all that we shall have done is to put an absolute premium on stalling the negotiations along. One would have to put the absolute premium on the other parties, recognising that by that date it will have all come to an end and any future discussions after that date would be against a background of the Commonwealth countries having less preferential advantage than they had.
It seems to us that this would indeed be negotiating from a position of weakness. It seems to us that this would be to take away from us the cards which we need to play in that period. Therefore, the maintenance of the position and the avoidance of an automatic cut-off must surely be quite critical in evaluating the worth of any agreement we make. I am not at all clear that the Government are seized of this point or are clear about the answer to it. We get the same kind of ambiguous terms over this as I have noted in respect of other arrangements. It seems to hon. Members on this side of the House that the position of the Government is exceedingly unclear and could be very harmful in the relationship at the end.
The same thing in a way applies to the provision of comparable outlets in the wider market for the Commonwealth countries after, assuming that we go into the enlarged Community. I repeat that we must mean something by that. Again, I do not say that it cannot be arranged. The point is that we must mean what we say in order that what we arrange is worth while. After all, these countries, especially the developing countries, can reasonably look forward not only to the maintenance of their present trade, but to an expansion of their trade with an enlarged Community of this kind. So we must see to it that we do not deny


at the very least a comparable access into that wider market to the trade that they now have with us.
I have sometimes heard it said—I must finish on this point—that to make these demands is in fact to attach to the members something so high as to be unrealistic. This I do not believe. We should not go into these negotiations as a supplicant. While many of us believe that there would be advantages from association on the right terms for us, let us be clear about the fact that the Community would also gain from having us in it. Indeed, initially the Community may gain more out of it than we would gain.
We ought to make very clear to the member countries in the way we conduct ourselves, and in the way we present our arguments to them and in the demands we make, that we have essential commitments, the fulfilment of which, it is true, would involve some sacrifices to, Jet us say, potential French agricultural ambitions. All right, let us say so. Our coming in involves sacrifices of potential ambitions on the part of the Commonwealth not more so but to some existing positions. Let us make that perfectly plain to the French. We are here going to have to trade real concessions for real concessions. I think that the value of this debate is that we can say so loudly and clearly even though Her Majesty's Ministers appear not to have done so.
I believe—it is quite likely that some of my hon. Friends will dispute this— that it would be possible to get a majority view in this country in favour of entering the Common Market on the sort of terms about which I have been talking. But I am very certain that people will not endorse an agreement which arises from (he kind of muffled and dual voice with which we are speaking at the moment. If as a result of this debate our Continental friends were to understand more clearly the basis on which alone Britain can come in, I think it would probably have a very good effect on the rest of the negotiations. I want to see us go in, but I want to see it done on a basis that we can all stand UP to.
I believe that there are members of the Community as it is at present constituted who very much welcome the thought of us and the Norwegians and the Danes

being in. They favour it for a number of reasons, political and economic, about which they are not altogether satisfied in the present Community set-up. We should capitalise their desire. We should capitalise the fact that they have that wish. We should set out to present our application reasonably but firmly. My great worry, I repeat, is that we have not been doing that. There has been all this dual talk. I am afraid that the short amount of time left before the totally unnecessary deadline will be insufficient for Ministers to recover the bad negotiating position which they have adopted throughout this time.

7.16 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Birch.

Mr. William Baxter: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The best method of debate, I believe, is for those "for" and "against" the proposal to put their points of view. Up to the moment we have had two speeches from hon. Members in favour of going into the Common Market with certain safeguards. I know that it is very difficult for you, Mr. Speaker, to choose hon. Members who are definitely for or against. But I think that some method should be adopted whereby some of the hon. Members who are diametrically opposed to going into the Common Market can have the opportunity of expressing that point of view. While I believe it is true that there is a considerable volume of opinion in the country in favour of going into the Common Market, there is also a considerable volume of opinion against going in.

Hon. Members: Order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I can understand the difficulty of the hon. Gentleman. I will tell him how I solve mine. I make my own inquiries to try to find out what are the views of hon. Members one way or the other and I shall do my best in the course of the debate—if there ever is any course to it—to make quite sure that both points of views are expressed as fairly as can be.

7.17 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Birch: I thought that in the earlier part of his speech, at any rate, the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) leaned


much further over the Common Market side of the fence than he usually does. But no doubt the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) will lean further on the other side, and so the balance will be maintained.
As several hon. Members have pointed out there hardly could be a worse day for this debate. Today, in Brussels, there will be discussed the most difficult part, where the crunch comes, the question of getting a balance between agricultural prices within the Community, and also allow reasonable access for third parties within the Commonwealth and elsewhere. If we were to debate this issue it would be rather like the Transport and General Workers' Union, at one of its great conferences, debating how far it would go, to the nearest penny an hour, before having a strike.

Mr. G. Brown: That is what it does do.

Mr. Birch: But not in public. I do not think that Mr. Cousins would at all approve of that. Anyway, I shall not attempt to debate the crunch. I think that it would be unpatriotic. And, besides, I do not think that at this stage of the negotiations anyone not directly engaged in them knows enough to pronounce where the sticking point ought to be.
But as we go on, it seems clear in these long negotiations—they are bound to be long—that the whole question is getting increasingly overlaid by a porridge of opinions, emotions and prejudices. What I want to do, very briefly, this afternoon is to take a mop and pail and try to sweep some of the porridge away.
The first and most nasty lumps in the porridge—no one likes lumpy porridge —are the fellow travellers. I define a fellow traveller as somebody who, wittingly or unwittingly invariably happens to follow the Russian Communist line. The fellow travellers are against the Common Market. They have a right to their opinion, but I wish that they would not say that it is because of their veneration of the Throne and the Empire.
The next thing which is happening is, I think, rather dangerous. These

negotiations have led to an extraordinary uprush of xenophobia in this country, a dislike of foreigners. This happens in all parties, but I suppose the high priest of xenophobia at the moment is the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton). I am very fond of the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring. I have a great respect for him, but he always reminds me of the Guards officer who said, "Abroad is a bloody place and all foreigners are …" I leave the rest to the imagination of the House. I have no doubt that the hon. Member would have made an admirable Guards officer and would have been very popular in the mess. They would have liked his stories.
It seems, however, for a country like ours, which is so dependent on relations with foreign countries, rather unwise to encourage ourselves in this dislike of foreigners. It is not a wise thing to do. It could lead us, in the end, to a great deal of trouble. Mr. Colin Clark, who, I think, was twice a Labour candidate, said that Socialism is tolerable provided that it is international. Socialism in this country is increasingly becoming national. That is why their fellow-Socialists in Brussels were so distressed by what the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) said. It was their very narrow nationalism which surprised and shocked these Socialists in Brussels.
The next point I want to deal with is the curious idea, which was referred to by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) in the last debate, that the Commonwealth started with the Ottawa Agreements in 1932. The Commonwealth started a very long time before 1932 and will long outlast the withering away of these Agreements. It is rather odd to see the way in which the hand is being played. It is understandable that some of my hon. and right hon. Friends should feel very strongly about the Ottawa Agreements. At the time they were supposed to be, and I think they were, a Tory triumph. They were beneficial at the time and I do not think they have worked altogether badly.
On the other hand, hon. Members opposite were violently opposed and voted against the Ottawa Agreements. I


shall quote What Mr. Attlee, as he then was, said about them because this is instructive. He said in this House on 19th October, 1932, as reported in the OFFICIAL REPORT for that day:
it is obvious to anyone who went to Ottawa or who studied the proceedings there, that they"—
that is, the Government negotiators—
were thoroughly well bullied by the Dominion representatives and that they made an extremely bad bargain for this country.
I am sorry, I have misread a word. He said:
they made an intolerably bad bargain for this country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th October, 1932; Vol. 269, c. 183.]
Now he is a belted Earl and he is faced about.
It is rather gratifying that hon. Members opposite have reached a conclusion which we reached thirty years ago. Who knows what the next thirty years may bring forth? We have much hope. I would say to hon. Members opposite who now show great enthusiasm for Ottawa that they are doing what many hon. Members opposite so often do, they are gibbering and gesticulating on the deserted battlefields of the 1930s. It is a deserted battlefield. After all, the Ottawa Agreements were based on two ideas: one was that we can have political union in the Commonwealth and the other was a wish and desire to go in for exclusive trade agreements and to develop them to the limit.
I do not want to talk about political unity within the Commonwealth except to say that it is sometimes instructive to look at the voting figures in the United Nations. On the economic question, there is no sign whatever that Commonwealth countries are anxious to go in for exclusive trade arrangements, or to develop them in any way. The withering away of preferences has not been by our will, but by their will all the way through. We get into a terrible muddle when we start talking about the Commonwealth. We should always remember how intensely diverse it is and how false it is to add all these bodies together to produce an enormous total and think that they will all do the same thing.
The results of the latest rescue operation for India were published in The Times on Monday. A credit loan of

1,070 million dollars was assembled, of which we put up 84 million dollars. That is less than 10 per cent. In these days, in a country such as India trade follows aid. It does not follow the flag. We ought to do all we can to extend aid to India, but we cannot do that unless we can earn the money, and we shall not earn it from India.
Then there is the question of the protection of industries in developing and developed countries of the Commonwealth. Take Australia as a good example. Australia has quite a lot of coastal shipping. It protects its own shipbuilding industry by subsidies and a refusal to import ships. Our shipbuilders have been tendering in the last few years perfectly genuinely, but I am told that they have got hardly a single order for several years from Australia. That is because Australia wants to build her own ships in her own country, but, of course, we could do with those orders.
Take protection for balance of payments reasons. New Zealand is in a certain amount of balance of payments difficulties and has made arrangements by which 160 items virtually cannot be traded to New Zealand at all. Of course, all these countries have a perfect right to do what they are doing if they believe that it is in their own interests to do so. They are sovereign.
But we must understand the anxieties and difficulties of British industrialists who say that in the modern world they have to have a long run to produce economically. That canont be done unless one has a big market. It cannot be done if one's trade is constantly to be cut off because of some balance of payment difficulties, or whatever the reason may be. That is why they believe it is so vital for their trade and for employment in this country to get access to a large market in which their business cannot be arbitrarily cut off. It therefore seems hopeless to try to go back to the old system of trade in the Commonwealth, to try to live by taking in each other's washing, and to try to devise exclusive trade agreements which no one wants. To do that is to replant a dead tree.
Of course the difficulties are very great. Of course the dangers are great, but in times of danger very often the middle course is the worst. The middle


course here is to say, "Well, we would like to get in" and then to set conditions which we know perfectly well cannot possibly be fulfilled.
The Commonwealth, of course, must stand up for itself, and is doing so, just as it did at Ottawa. Hon. Members will have noticed that Mr. Menzies dismissed Mr. Leslie Bury, the Aviation Minister, because Mr. Bury said that it would not make much difference to Australia if we went into the Common Market, and Mr. Menzies said that to say this would spoil his bargaining position. Of course, the Commonwealth will fight, and quite right, too. We must help the Commonwealth all we can, but I would say that it has no right to veto our policy. We, too, are sovereign. The right hon. Member for Belper seemed to suggest that we should give the Commonwealth Prime Ministers an absolute veto upon our policy. That, I believe, is wrong.
There are many difficulties and dangers. One of the minor ones—one of the lumps in the porridge—are Lord Beaverbrook's newspapers. Lord Beaverbrook's papers, in any matter dealing with the Common Market, show suppressio veri, suggestio falsi, xenophobia, Chauvinism and plain damn nonsense. Any report on a Common Market matter in the Beaverbrook papers is truly unrecognisable when compared with reports in any other paper, on the radio, or either television service. I do not believe that a single soul in this House of Commons will deny that what I say is true.
I think that Lord Beaverbrook has done a good deal of harm abroad, but I do not think he has done so much harm here. We know him pretty well. He has seldom espoused any cause which he has not damaged. I do not know whether there is any aspiring biographer of Lord Beaverbrook here, but if there is I suggest a title for his book—"The Unsuccessful Propagandist". It must be some consolation to him to know that he does not get away with it.
Meditating the other day on this matter, I thought of a line from Goethe's "Faust", which I want to quote, and I apologise for quoting it in German, though I will give a translation of it

afterwards. In this quotation Mephistopheles describes himself as
Ein Teil von jener Kraft,
Die stets das Böse will und stets das Gute schafft.
which—if I can find the translation—means:
Part of the power that still
Produces Good, while still devising ill.
I think that his Lordship does produce good, while still devising ill. This may be some consolation to him.
However, he is not really the enemy. The enemy of all this is the enemy of prejudice, of fear of change, old loyalties and fear of 'the unknown, and it will require all the energy and courage of the Government to win through. I believe that we are immensely fortunate in having as our leading negotiator my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal. He has the most luminous mind I have known in any Minister of any party or of any civil servant. He has a perfectly staggering power of work. Let us determine to back him up with all our heart, with all our mind and with all our strength.

7.34 p.m.

Mr. John Hynd: I should like to approach this matter from the point of view of the interests and the principles of the party—

Mr. William Warbey: On a point of order. In view of what you had to say recently, Mr. Speaker, in reply to a point of order raised by my hon. Friend, I wonder whether you have, in fact, been able to inquire as to the views of hon. Members wishing to take part in the debate, since we are now to have the fourth speech in favour of the Common Market.

Mr. Speaker: There must be some limit to this process. I am well aware of the hon. Gentleman's views, and if he does not say anything else, it was my intention to call him next from that side of the House. I am quite sure that he knows the very difficult circumstances. In a debate like this, no hon. Member would wish to share with the Chair the responsibility of having to select the speakers. Even if he wanted to, he cannot.

Mr. Hynd: I wish to deal with this question from the point of view of the principles and the policy of the party


which I have the honour to represent. It is true that there are divided views on this general subject on both sides of the House. It is not for me to deal with the views represented by the ultra-right wing of the Tory Party; that is, their arguments based on old-fashioned Imperialism. That is a matter for hon. Members on the Government side to deal with themselves.
What I cannot ever understand is why there should be opposition to the extent that there is from this side of the House. I am one of those who believe—I am convinced—that the purpose of the Labour Party and of the Socialist movement anywhere in the world is a twofold purpose, and that it always has been. First, it is to achieve a society in our own territory in which there shall be a fair distribution of the common product and common effort, and, beyond this, the elimination of national barriers wherever they exist to bring about the construction of wider and wider communities in which these principles can be established.
One of the tragedies of the modern world is that every time any advance is proposed in this direction, in spite of the lessons of history, which show that wars between Lancashire and Yorkshire, and between Scotland and England, were only eliminated when these territories came under one single sovereignty, every attempt is frustrated by the resurgence of xenophobic nationalism, such as we have heard in all the debates on this issue. Having heard all the arguments used by the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) about the British farming subsidies, about this or that aspect of Commonwealth trading and so on, I think we are losing sight of the facts about what is happening in Europe today and what we are trying to do, which goes far and away beyond the 'balance of advantages for France, Germany or ourselves in any particular economic activity.
What is happening on the Continent, at least, is that these countries, which suffered from the war to an extent to which we never did, have learned the awful lessons of two world wars—that the only way to avoid a repetition of this suicidal nonsense is to tear down the barriers which have divided them and which have always dragged Britain

into their fratricidal strife. Something which a few years ago would have been regarded as impossible is now taking place, because those countries have learned that lesson. Our response in too many quarters is to revive once again the old nationalist arguments, with references to British farm subsidies, the Commonwealth, the bogies of Adenauer and de Gaulle, Catholic plots and all the rest of this kind of nonsense.
This is not the first time that an attempt has been made to break down national barriers and to bring people together. After the First World War we tried the League of Nations to bring an end to European strife. A world authority was created but not an inch of national sovereignty was handed over to that international authority. Thus, its failure was inevitable.
May I remind the House of what the Labour Party said about it in their publication of the time, The Old World and the New Society. This was in 1941. They said,
The first experiment in international Government … failed because selfish national interest deprived it of the conditions precedent to success…. The hoped-for world order became a chaos once more. Each nation state went its own sovereign way. Each sought to stand alone.
The result was another world war.
Out of this world war came the resurgence of the determination to bring an end to war. We had the Atlantic Charter as the beginning of the new world. This was in 1941. The intention of the Atlantic Charter was
to bring about the fullest collaboration between all nations in the economic field, with the object of securing for all, improved labour standards, economic advancement and social security.
That was surely an object worthy of the support of Socialists everywhere, and it was given that support, even if it stipulated "between all nations" and not just between such nations as might seek to elect Socialist governments. We unanimously applauded it and we have never ceased to invoke its terms in our Socialist arguments for human rights and justice. But it failed, because there was no one to ensure its authority and it had no sovereignty of its own. None of the member countries which signed the Charter was prepared to establish any authority which would ensure that its policies were carried out.
Now let us look at the Treaty of Rome. In Article 2 we see the following words:
It shall be the task of the Community, by establishing a Common Market and progressively approximating the economic policies of Member States, to promote throughout the Community a harmonious development of economic activities, a continuous and balanced expansion, an increased stability, an accelerated raising of the standard of living, and closer relations between its Member States.
Those are very similar words to the words of the Atlantic Charter, and, like the Atlantic Charter, it does not state that nothing must be done towards the realisation or these objectives until Socialist Governments have been elected in each member State, any more than did the Charter of the United Nations or the League of Nations or I.L.O. or W.H.O. or any of the international organisations to which we belong but all of which, nonetheless, as Socialists we must surely support.
It is surely a very curious argument for Socialists to say that while applauding such objectives we should firmly refuse to participate in any step towards their realisation until we have arrived at universal and permanent Socialism which, of course, assumes that there will be no further democracy, because people will no longer have the right to vote any other way. It is a most curious argument for hon. Members on this side of the House to use; nevertheless it is used. We might as well argue that the Labour Party should take no part in Parliament until we have been assured of a permanent Labour majority. But this is the attitude towards our membership of the European Community by certain of my hon. Friends.
The words of the Atlantic Charter and of the Rome Treaty express sentiments and objectives which we all wish to see realised. The significant difference is that in the Rome Treaty, unlike the Atlantic Charter, the instruments and the institutions were established alongside the solemn commitments which ensured that these objectives would be put into operation and progressively implemented by the Community.
The result is that already in its short life, beginning with the Coal and Steel Community, within a few months all

restrictions, tariffs, customs, transport discriminations, quotas and the rest were abolished over about 2,000 miles of frontier which hitherto had been hostile frontiers in Europe, and other tariffs and internal hindrances to trade have already been reduced drastically and are in process of abolition. For the first time in history laws have been established against cartels and monopoly practices in the Continent of Europe. The 40-hour week, paid holidays and equal pay are established principles which are now being implemented in Europe. Free movement of workers, with protection and guarantees as to their conditions of employment, common policies for coal and steel and for atomic energy and agriculture are being worked out between all these countries. These are tremendous achievements, and they are clearly along the lines which have always been preached by the Socialist movement and by the Labour Party. They are happening in Europe today.
Why, therefore this strange opposition by some who claim to represent progressive Socialism and international ideals? I have here a publication which puts the case very well. It is called Keep Left, and it was produced in 1947. It has an interesting chapter, "We are Europeans now".

Miss Jennie Lee: But not half-Europeans.

Mr. Hynd: No, Europeans. This is what this publication said:
A Socialist Britain cannot prosper so long as Europe is divided. The goal we should work for is federation which binds together the nations now under Eastern domination with the peoples of Western Europe.
But it goes on—referring to the half European—with the following words:
But this goal is a long way off. For the present it would be wise to concentrate on less spectacular forms of European collaboration designed gradually to remove the Iron Curtain.
It asks for an economic union of European States which would enable us once again to stand up to an American slump. I recommend this publication to all who are interested in the various opinions on this question.
Perhaps I may be permitted another quotation from this publication on "Britain and the Empire". It is:
It may be objected that by accepting our destiny as part of Europe we shall betray the


Empire. But the Commonwealth is not an exclusive association, and in the last war it ceased to be a strategic unity. The true defence of the Commonwealth, as an association of free peoples, depends on the unification of Europe, which cannot be achieved if Britain stands aside.
This publication was prepared and issued under a list of interesting names, including those of the hon. Members for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) and Bosworth (Mr. Wyatt), who was at the time a member of the Keep Left Group.
In 1956 I was responsible for placing a Motion on the Order Paper, which was signed by 82 hon. Members on this side of the House, which recognised the advantages and disadvantages of this country joining the Common Market and nonetheless
urged Her Majesty's Government Co accept She invitation to participate in the negotiations among the other six member countries of Western European Union and endeavour to negotiate arrangements which would make it possible for the United Kingdom to participate in the advance towards a Common Market.
Among the signatories to the Motion was the hon. Member for Coventry, East, the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. George Craddock), the hon. Member for Leek—

ROYAL ASSENT

7.48 p.m.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners:

The House went:—and, having returned;

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Finance Act, 1962.
2. Appropriation Act, 1962.
3. Transport Act, 1962.
4. Education (Scotland) Act, 1962.
5. Law Reform (Husband and Wife) Act, 1962.
6. Air Guns and Shot Guns, etc., Act, 1962.
7. Landlord and Tenant Act, 1962.
8. Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1962.
9. Penalties for Drunkenness Act, 1962.
10. House of Commons Members' Fund Act, 1962.

11. Trinidad and Tobago Independence Act, 1962.
12. Lotteries and Gaming Act, 1962.
13. Local Government (Records) Act, 1962.
14. Uganda Independence Act, 1962.
15. Pipe-lines Act, 1962.
16. Road Traffic Act, 1962.
17. Glasgow Corporation Order Confirmation Act, 1962.
18. Tay Road Bridge Order Confirmation Act, 1962.
19. Leith Harbour and Docks Order Confirmation Act, 1962.
20. Maidstone Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Order Confirmation Act, 1962.
21. Pier and Harbour Order (Great Yarmouth New Britannia Pier) Confirmation Act, 1962.
22. Pier and Harbour Order (Great Yarmouth Port and Haven) Confirmation Act, 1962.
23. Pier and Harbour Order (Langstone Harbour) Confirmation Act, 1962.
24. Letchworth Garden City Corporation Act, 1962.
25. Dartford Tunnel Act, 1962.
26. Orpington Urban District Council Act, 1962.
27. British Transport Commission Act, 1962.
28. City of London (Various Powers) Act, 1962.
29. Regent Refining Company Act, 1962.
30. London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1962.
31. River Dart Navigation Act, 1962.
32. South Staffordshire Water Act, 1962.
33. Scotswood Bridge Act, 1962.
34. London County Council (Improvements) Act, 1962.
35. London Bridge Improvements Act, 1962.
36. Port of London Act, 1962.
37. Northampton Corporation Act, 1962.
38. Manchester Ship Canal Act,. 1962.

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Question again proposed, That this House do now adjourn.

8.3 p.m.

Mr. Hynd: Before the interruption, Mr. Speaker, I was recalling the Motion placed upon the Order Paper in 1956, signed by 82 Labour Members, calling on this Government to enter into negotiations with the Six for the purpose of ensuring British entry into the European Economic Community. I had almost completed the list of those whom I particularly wanted to mention as being responsible for it, but, in addition, I should like to mention the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) who, only a few hours ago today, was arguing that there was not much point in resuming early after the Summer Recess because we had no impact on the Government. I would congratulate him and my hon. Friends on having forced the Government, even after this long time, to take the stop they then advised.
We have had even more interesting metamorphoses of opinion in this matter because last year, on the occasion of the 21st anniversary of the foundation of Federal Union, a brochure was published with a full page containing a message from Lord Attlee, welcoming
… the opportunity to congratulate Federal Union on its 21st Anniversary.
Internal divisions during the past decades have brought Europe from a position of world leadership almost to the verge of self-destruction.
The real challenge for the future is how far we are prepared to surrender the old concepts of absolute national sovereignty. Some people have compared Britain to a semi-detached house—attached to Europe on one side only. But if this is Britain's position I am convinced she of all countries must be concerned with her neighbours.
The days of seeming European domination have gone. Europe now has to serve the world. And the people of Europe must get together to put their long traditions to the service of humanity as a whole.
The ideal, and a realisable one, is a World Federation. A World Federation has to be built up. The progress made on the economic level in Europe is of great assistance. Now, what matters is the political aspect and in this field I believe that Federal Union will continue to make an important contribution.
I was, therefore, very much surprised when in my post only last week I

received another message from Lord Attlee saying that we
… should not be justified in hastily handing over substantial power now held by the British Parliament and electorate to untried institutions mainly dependent on European countries with unstable political records.
It is all very puzzling, and makes one wonder why these changes in thinking have taken place. It is not because of the Commonwealth Preference problem, because that problem existed when the Motion was on the Order Paper, when Keep Left was published, and when Lord Attlee issued his first declaration of loyalty to Federal Union principles. It is not because of new objections from the Commonwealth, because these are becoming more and more moderate as time goes on. The resignation of the Australian Minister, and the panic of Mr. Menzies himself when he thought that the whole thing would fall down, the protestations by Mr. Fleming who said that our Press was misrepresenting Canada as being opposed to our application—all that has changed for the better. In any case the final outlines of the Commonwealth position are under negotiation, so that until information of the conditions is available one cannot say that there is a new problem.
The same applies to the British agricultural problem. That, too, was there before. There are changing views in the agricultural community. Many of our farmers are very much in favour of joining, and we have the new evidence that the European Economic Community is now, in fact, hammering out a common agricultural policy based on the terms of the Treaty of Rome and on exactly the same principles as expressed in our Acts of Parliament dealing with farming subsidy policy. And the final result will be decided with us, if and when we join.
But even if—and this is the interesting point—these were the main problems facing some of my colleagues recently converted against the Common Market, even if both problems were overcome and we got all that we asked for in regard to the Commonwealth and our farm prices system, there would still be Adenauer and de Gaulle, who were there before, when those of whom I speak were in favour of our joining. There would still be the problem of the pooling of our sovereignty, which my


hon. Friends were apparently prepared to accept a few months ago are not prepared to accept now—and the pooling of sovereignty, in the words of Lord Attlee, with
… untried institutions mainly dependent on European countries with unstable political records.
as contrasted, no doubt with such countries as Ghana, Pakistan and India, within the Commonwealth. We have to face the phenomenon that a change of opinion has taken place, and we have not been told why. The conditions of our joining are certainly no less favourable now than they were before. I prefer the trade union arguments which I consider to be positive and constructive.
I have seen references in some Opposition circulars to the attitude of the Trades Union Congress but I can hardly reconcile the two attitudes, because in all the publications it has issued the Trades Union Congress's position seems to be a reasonably favourable one. In its first publication, issued a few years ago, the T.U.C. pointed out very clearly the dangers of our not joining in a European Community, and said that it considered
… that closer European co-operation has much to contribute in terms of higher and more equal living standards, increased social stability, and the dissolution of national antagonisms…
and emphasised
the desira to end Franco-German antagonism, to give Germany more outlet for her industrial energies and at the same time to exercise some control over the economic and political forces in Germany which instigated the Second World War.
In their latest publication the T.U.C. urges the Government to enter these negotiations and, up to date, the Congress has supported the negotiations, while laying down certain conditions. One such condition, contained in the latest document published by the T.U.C, states:
… the real test of European Economic Unity is whether it will promote full employment….
It will be noted that they do not demand a guarantee because no treaty can guarantee full employment. Only a Government and a Parliament with a policy which will lead to full employment can achieve that. And that, of course, depends on the political complexion of the Government, whether in this country or in the event, that of the European Community.
It is clear that when we talk about the possible difficulties of Socialist planning or full employment within the European Community we are seeming to overlook the fact that our own country does not at present have a Socialist Government. In fact, the problem is not whether, if we join the Common Market, it will be more difficult for the present Prime Minister and his Tory Government to go ahead with their Socialist planning, nationalisation and improving the social standards and so on. That is not the position at all. If we have to win the battle for these things in our own little island we are surely entitled to try to win that battle in the wider sphere of Europe—and I would prefer to have the wider sphere in which to do it.
The Socialist parties of the Six, at their recent Congress in Luxembourg, passed resolutions supporting the Economic Community, urging all Socialist parties to support the implementation of the treaties, to undertake joint Socialist action after entry has come into force and to draw up economic programmes which would enable all these aims to be realised by means of constructive common policies which would lead to the stability of the world.
Despite what might be said about the Treaty of Rome as it stands, how will we be able to improve our standards, or the standards and conditions throughout the Community and, at the same time, achieve a policy of full employment and rising social standards, unless, first of all, we are in a position to influence that policy? The only way we can influence it is by being there, on the spot—in their Parliament with our Ministers present at the Council of Ministers—helping to frame that kind of policy. We cannot do it unless we are present at those discussions and here is where the political argument comes in, and I am sometimes astonished when people say that they would accept our membership of the Community provided our entry can be made on certain conditions, but "For heavens sake," they say, "Do not let us have anything to do with Parliamentary control."
This, to me, is a completely impossible attitude to understand. How British politicians, particularly Labour hon. Members with the experience and the


tradition of our own country and holding such principles as they do, can say that they might be prepared to join this great economic Community with all the power it can have over our lives and the way it can affect our standards and influence our international affairs—because trade follows flag and flag follows trade—only on certain conditions sometimes baffles me.
What these critics are suggesting is that we should hand over all these powers to a commission of civil servants in Brussels or, alternatively, to a Council of Ministers, each haggling over their individual national interests, a Council of Ministers, which at one time could be made up of Conservative Ministers— whereby millions of Socialists and Liberals would not be represented at all —or on another occasion might be a Council of Socialist Ministers—with the views of millions of Conservatives, Liberals and others not represented. I would have thought that we, of all people, should have insisted on whatever organisation it is having a proper democratic Parliamentary control so that we would be able to control the executive, just as we do in Britain, and to ensure that the vast minorities would have a proper say in protecting their conditions, just as the majorities would have.
This is the only way it can be done. We cannot avoid the conclusion that the only way to make it an effective reality is to have an effective European Parliament, democratically representing the people. The Six are beginning to develop their political institutions, institutions which will control the Executive —I hope more and more on the lines we adopt in this country.
I remind hon. Members that if we had in 1956 been the members of the European Community, with an effective political authority and common Parliament, there would have been no Suez, because every one except Britain and France would have been against it. I urge my hon. Friends to think back to 1939. Would the war have been possible if Britain, Germany, France and the other countries had been members of a common community and common Parliament? The same might be said of the 1914-18 war. These are important matters—the kind of things I have in

mind when discussing the European Community. These important subjects must be fully considered; not just the problems affecting hosiery manufacturers or the question of whether or not one likes the flavour of Italian tomatoes.
I support the Treaty of Rome, and I do not necessarily mean all of it in detail. The Europeans are getting on with the job. They are doing something we have been praying for for generations. They are doing it while Britain stands at the crossroads. Either we join in this great and inspiring adventure in uniting peoples and demonstrating that such unity—which alone can be the basis of ultimate world government—is possible and fruitful. Either we join hands now, with Germany, France, Belgium, Italy, Holland, Luxembourg, Denmark, Norway and, glory be, of Southern Ireland, strengthening, as only the great British Labour Movement can strengthen, the Socialist and trade union forces now ranged in unity within this common front—or we can seek to contract out of yet another great objective which the Labour Party was created to achieve.

8.18 p.m.

Sir Anthony Hurd: Like many of my hon. Friends, I have tried to keep a reasonably open mind, giving due weight to the ardent belief of the Prime Minister and other Ministers that we should join the Common Market. We have, rightly, I think, set about that with all the will and skill we have to negotiate terms on which we could enter with safeguards for the Commonwealth, for our own agriculture and horticulture.
I take the Commonwealth first, and I must be brief on what is the immediate political issue. I am sure that our people wall want to know that our entry will not weaken the Commonwealth and. indeed, that the terms are endorsed by the Commonwealth Prime Ministers as being helpful to their countries and economies as well as to Britain. That is a fairly tall order, but that is what the British public will want to hear.
We must rely on the Lord Privy Seal to argue in Brussels vigorously for a trade policy which will allow the Dominions to retain a full share of their markets here and in Europe. If the Commonwealth means anything to us, we must hold ourselves responsible for


keeping open markets for their wheat, meat and dairy produce. I am talking particularly about the temperate foodstuffs, because they present an acute issue.
A clear understanding must be reached. It will be an essential consideration when we come to decide whether we shall or shall not enter. Naturally, I welcome the signs in Europe that the Six are thinking about international agreements, maybe on a limited scale at the start, to look after the interests of the Commonwealth countries and then spreading out into wider agreements. That is what President Kennedy is aiming at; he is making moves across the board to get tariff reductions on American goods in Europe for concessions on his side.
I think that we may very well in five years' time, if we work on this, get international agreements to stabilise the markets of the primary products. I am sure that that would be greatly welcomed by Australia, New Zealand and Canada, as well as by America, and, indeed, I believe by an outward-looking European Community. It would be an outward-looking European community if we could get the right terms to join.
I hope that the Government will show its interest in this kind of international effort to stabilise world markets and shift surpluses to where they are needed, and that we shall make a contribution in knowledge and in funds to the pilot scheme which the United Nations is launching next month. It is most important that we should show willing and show our interest. Whether we like it or not, we and the world will be faced with ever-increasing food surpluses, and the sooner wet get down to the job of tackling this problem in a good spirit internationally the sooner we shall find a solution.
Coming back to the Brussels negotiations, some of our farmers, notably the younger men, confidently and rightly think that they can match any competition from the Continent. Our farms are bigger and better equipped, and the skill of our men is at least as good as that of any on the Continent.
We have developed a policy to suit ourselves in this country. It has given us a thriving and highly productive agri-

culture, contributing much to the strength of the nation's economy, while, at the same time, our people get their food considerably cheaper than most others abroad. I am not one of those who say that we shall have to scrap the basis of a secure policy for agriculture which is enshrined in the 1947 and 1957 Agriculture Acts.
I believe that we can modify policy and reduce the cost to the Exchequer? But we should not abandon the principle which we have made work satisfactorily for Britain unless we are quite sure that we shall be getting something in a wider community which will serve our farmers and our land equally well.
The trouble about joining the Common Market is that the Six in Europe have not yet begun to evolve a common agricultural policy. Their commodity by commodity approach lacks the safeguards that we apply year by year through the annual review and assess what is happening in agriculture, what we want to happen in agriculture, and we also put into the scales a great many other considerations such as cost, our trading connections, the effect on the Dominions, and so on. I am, therefore, glad that it now seems to be accepted in Europe that they will have an annual farm review and I should like to give full credit not only to my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal, but also to the Minister of Agriculture for having educated Europeans to recognise the value of this exercise.
It will be a great task, of course, to marshall all the information about costs and prices, trends of production, and farm incomes from all over Europe. It has not always been an easy task to work out our own farm policy and prices. I find that farmers are asking, "What hope is there really that we shall through the farm review in Europe get an agricultural policy which will suit everyone in Europe as well as ourselves?" There could be grave distortions in the pattern of British agriculture if many farmers were tempted by a high wheat price to go wheat mining and by low prices and big supplies to go out of production in milk, pigs and eggs. We could get our agriculture into a sorry mess.
This uncertainty underlines the importance of another concession which


my right hon. Friends have secured in negotiations in Europe. There is the prospect of a system of residual assurances to look after those sections of agriculture where the annual review shows that remedial action is needed to maintain and, indeed, to raise farm incomes in terms of the Treaty of Rome. Some farmers in some countries are accustomed to considerably higher incomes than others. This provision for residual assurances must now be set out clearly for all to understand.
Among my farming friends there is great anxiety about this. They say,"We have heard what the Minister of Agriculture said in a recent speech in the country. Does it mean that we shall put up our case in Brussels to show that a certain section of our farming community is being hard hit and the level of income is dropping", and then the Commission will say, "It is just too bad; you must just wear it"? Or shall we have some reserve right to look after that section of the farming interests which we consider essential to a proper balance and right pattern in our agriculture? Shall we have the right to do that on our own account with, of course, the approval and understanding of the Community?
We need a clear understanding of what these arrangements may be. I feel that our farmers cannot be expected to agree to jettison the system of guarantees on which home production has expanded so successfully in recent years for the chance of higher prices, in some cases considerably higher prices, for a time, in Europe and then a deluge of surpluses. If prices are kept high in Europe, production will soar, and then what will happen? We must bear in mind the need to keep a pattern and a balance in our agriculture as in the agriculture of Europe as a whole. If that comes out of the annual review, well and good. If it does not, I do not think that we should find much joy in the Common Market, or that our partners in Europe would do so either.
On the present showing we are expected to take a good deal on trust both for Commonwealth trade and for British agriculture. I would echo the words of the First Secretary of State this afternoon, that we cannot yet honestly

say that we have succeeded in safeguarding the interests of British agriculture and horticulture. I hope that the Lord Privy Seal will have a successful run in Brussels this week, and that the farming community and our Commonwealth partners will feel happier at the end of this week than they did at its beginning.

8.28 p.m.

Mr. William Warbey: This debate takes place in very strange circumstances, not only because while it is going on the crux of negotiations is being reached in Brussels, but also because a similar debate is taking place in another place, in which there has been a very important statement of Government policy from the Foreign Secretary, a statement very different in character from the one which we heard from the right hon. Gentleman the First Secretary of State in this House earlier this afternoon.
Once again, we have had an illustration of just how much we have lost the sovereignty of the House of Commons through permitting the Foreign Secretary to be in another place. It is one of the many examples of how the sovereignty of the House of Commons is being gradually reduced by the actions of the present Government.
In another place the Foreign Secretary has said quite frankly and openly why the Government are in favour of going into the Common Market and why they are determined that negotiations shall succeed, and, by implication, what they are prepared to sacrifice so that they shall succeed. He has said—and I paraphrase his words—that Europe is moving towards an economic and political union. He has said that Europe is the new centre of power. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I notice that the Liberals agree with this sentiment that Europe is the new centre of power.
The noble Lord has also said that we cannot stand aside from economic and political associations with that centre of power. He has said that the Commonwealth countries must understand that and must make the necessary adjustments. Well, that is frank.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: Very good stuff.

Mr. Warbey: I am very interested to hear that the Liberal Party approves of


this, because it shows that the Liberal Party in this country, like the Liberal Party in most countries, in moments of crisis always turn automatically to what they regard as the centre of power. They never have the courage to stand alone and take an independent line. When we come to the next election we shall find the same result, that the Liberal Party will then gravitate to what they regard as the new centre of power in this House, though if the Government have their way this House will not by then have much power left.
What is at stake in this question of entry into the Common Market is precisely the sacrifice of the independence of this country and also of such strength as the Commonwealth really has towards what is described as a new centre of power in Europe. It is perfectly true that the Western European countries— not Europe as a whole—and especially France and Germany have moved together into an economic and political association which is designed primarily for the defence of capitalist society against Communism. By so doing they have undoubtedly strengthened such power as they might have possessed individually.
We are invited—not by them very strongly, but by the British Government —to gravitate towards this new centre of power because it is thought that if we stood aside from it we would be too weak to stand up against it. In other words, the appeal that is made to us is one of sheer economic and political defeatism. The economic defeatism I can understand, because we have had eleven years of government which have pretty well ruined the economy of this country, and by its inspiration towards a bingo society has completely undermined both the initiative and the spirit of adventure of the British people.
Politically, I find it much more difficult to understand that this Government, a Conservative Government, should be prepared, in effect, to surrender the political sovereignty of Britain to a West European combination and, in so doing, to sacrifice the economic and political strength which has come to us in the past and which can come increasingly in the future from our Commonwealth association. That is the choice which we are invited to face.
Those among my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite who are now saying that there is a danger of the Government sacrificing the Commonwealth for the sake of joining the Common Market are waking up a little late. The decision was taken a year ago, when the Lord Privy Seal went to Brussels and, at the very opening of the negotiations, said that we were prepared to join the European Economic Community on the basis of the Treaty of Rome and without any amendment to that Treaty apart from consequential amendments in the voting provisions.
In so doing, the Lord Privy Seal then and there sold the pass. The provisions of the Treaty of Rome are such as to involve, first, the sacrifice of Commonwealth economic interests for the sake of those of Europe, secondly, the sacrifice of the possibility of socialist economic planning for the sake of so-called capitalist planning, and, thirdly, the sacrifice of democratic popular control of planning and of government to a bureaucratic, autocratic hierarchy. That is what the Treaty of Rome involves.
I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd) is not here now. When he, as an enthusiast for federation and world government, talks as though the Common Market, based on the Treaty of Rome, were anything like the conception of a Socialist European and Commonwealth union which some of us had in the early days after the war, he really cannot have looked at one Article of the Treaty of Rome or have bothered about them.

Mr. Arthur Holt: Has the hon. Gentleman read Article 104?

Mr. Warbey: Article 104, I suppose, is the Article about harmonising would trade or something or other—is it not? —one of the pious Articles in the Treaty which has no binding force, an Article about pursuing a
policy to ensure the equilibrium in its overall balance of payments…

Mr. Holt: Carry on.

Mr. Thorpe: rose—

Mr. Warbey: I do not propose to make the speeches which hon. Members are, apparently, unable to make. I am saury, but I prefer to make my own.

Mr. Thorpe: The hon. Gentleman is wrong.

Mr. Warbey: What we are asked to do in entering the European Economic Community is not to undertake the ordinary sacrifice of a portion of our sovereignty as a nation which is made when we enter into any other treaty or which was made when we subscribed to the United Nations Charter. This is totally different, because the Treaty of Rome is not just a treaty. It is a code of law drawn up by the Governments of other countries—

Mr. John Diamond: To increase Socialism.

Mr. Warbey: —including Governments which have some Social Democratic representatives in them—

Mr. Thorpe: And some which have nationalised industries.

Mr. Warbey: It is a Treaty which lays down in precise and legal terms not only the constitution of the organisation itself, but also the basic law of its economic policy.
We have not taken any part in shaping that Treaty. We are not in a position to amend it because the Government have given away that possibility. If we go in, we accept every Article of that Treaty, which means that we surrender not only a portion of our sovereignty as a nation but a part of the law-making activities of this House to another body which is not elected by the people of this country and in part to a body not elected by anyone at all.
Under this Treaty, which is binding not merely on every member Government but will be binding on every British citizen if we enter the Common Market, it will be possible for the Commission to issue decisions, to draw up regulations, to make prohibitions and to give binding instructions to British citizens. Those orders and decisions will have legislative and judicial force. If the prohibitions or the decisions are not complied with, British citizens can be fined and can appeal only to the Court of Justice, which merely has to take its decisions within the terms of the Statute itself.
If we enter the European Economic Community on the basis of the Treaty as it stands, this Parliament gives up its

legislative powers and British citizens will be placed at the mercy of another legislative body over which we have no control whatsoever. That is the abrogation of sovereignty which we are asked to undertake.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe will say, "But we can alter that. There is provision for an elected assembly and we will ensure that this elected assembly acquires democratic legislative powers and control over the executive". But there is none of that in the Articles of the Treaty of Rome, which provide for these subsidiary law-making and regulation-making powers and penalties to be in the hands of a non-elected Commission. It is not possible to alter a single article of the Treaty except by the unanimous consent of every member State.
That is the position in which it is proposed to place the people of this country. In other words, it is proposed completely to alter not merely the British Constitution but the way in which we in this country conduct our Parliamentary democracy. It is a proposal to substitute for our form of Parliamentary democracy a form of legislation, of law-making, of the imposition of penalties on citizens for disobeying the laws which is totally alien to the whole of our tradition.
The Treaty of Rome is closely modelled on the pre-1914 constitution of the German Reichstag. It is certainly pre-Magna Carta in its conception, because it means that under it British citizens will be placed in jeopardy for disregarding or disobeying laws which they have had no part in making. This is a principle which we fought 300 years in this country to sustain, and for 400 years we fought for the principle that the country should turn outwards towards the rest of the world. We are now proposing to abandon both those principles at one and the same time.
We are proposing to turn inwards towards Europe instead of outwards towards the rest of the Commonwealth, and to abandon our democratic system of legislation and control of the Executive and to substitute for it an autocratic system which will not even be in the hands of persons appointed by representatives of this country.

Mr. Holt: I am sure that the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) will


agree that on the Continent at least the Socialists are democratic. I have not heard that they have been complaining about this hell on earth created by the Common Market.

Hon. Members: They are in favour of it.

Mr. Warbey: Hon Members say that Socialists are in favour of it, but they are not. A number are opposed to it, a number of Socialists in the countries which have not yet gone into the Common Market, like Norway and Demark, where the Socialists are very worried about the implications of joining the Treaty of Rome and where they have approved an application for entry to join the Community only because they have been forced to do so by the application made by this country. In fact, Denmark, has made it a condition of entry that this country joins. Let us have no more talk about the attitude of the Socialists in Europe. One does not rescue those already in the Community from the mess which they are in. The more those outside learn about it, the less they like it.
We have to decide whether we are prepared to surrender sovereignty to a hierarchy, an autocratic body, over which we have no effective control, in the interests of the British people and the British Commonwealth. If this would lead to genuine Socialist economic planning, which is the aim of my hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe as well as myself, then there would be a good deal to be said for it, but here, again, we are barred by the terms of the Treaty itself. The Treaty of Rome is a written constitution to preserve a capitalist order of society. The rules of competition are so devised as to ensure that capitalist free enterprise has full play and is able to engage in all those activities which are capable of being run at a profit while leaving public enterprise to provide a social service.
That is the basis of the Treaty of Rome and it cannot be changed merely by going in. It can be changed only by altering the Statute, and one single country which represents a capitalist Government will be able to prevent any change whatsoever in the Treaty, and therefore any change in the essential character of the society which it is designed to preserve and protect.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) talked about the possibilities for economic planning being preserved within the scope of the Treaty of Rome. What utter nonsense. In Signposts for the Sixties we have talked about the necessity for a Socialist Government to control investment. How can we control investment if we have to ensure free movement of private capital, not only across frontiers, but within the country? How can we do it if we are tied down by laws which forbid any discrimination in favour of public enterprise as against private enterprise?
How can we adjust our balance of payments if we have to follow a common economic policy and are not allowed any control over imports independently of what the other countries agree to? How can we have any effective control of economic policy if we have to give perfect freedom to the big businessmen of other countries to come here and establish their businesses if they want to and move their capital in and out as they please?
This will make complete nonsense of any attempt at Socialist planning, yet in the negotiations the Lord Privy Seal has already agreed that we accept these principles enshrined in the Treaty, and I was astonished to hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper suggest that it is even possible to undertake democratic Socialist economic planning so long as we have to allow the free movement of capital, freedom of establishment, and the control of external economic policy by some group in Brussels.
That is the kind of abrogation of sovereignty that we are being asked to undertake. If my hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe, or anybody else, can show me that there is an association which is democratically controlled and which is fully open to the possibility of the establishment of a Socialist society on an international basis I shall be the first to say that we should go in, but under the present circumstances everything in this constitution is biased against such a concept, and for that reason I should have thought that not only would no Socialist agree to enter, but that no Conservative who had any respect for the democratic institutions of this country, for our legal system based


on common law, and for the sovereign will of the people expressed through Parliament could accept it either.

8.54 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Marlowe: It is well known that I am fiercely opposed to our entry into the Common Market, but if anything could ever shake my conviction on this matter it would be a speech such as that to which we have just listened. I have no objection whatever to people waving the Union Jack and giving praise to our British traditions and institutions, but I find it nauseating When they do it in the interests of Communism.

Mr. Warbey: On a point of order. I distinctly heard the hon. and learned Member for Hove (Mr. Marlowe) suggesting that my speech was made in the interests of Communism. I think that this is to be deplored.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker(Sir Robert Grimston): I find no point of order in that.

Mr. Warbey: rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has spoken for a considerable time, and there is little time left. He should let the hon. and learned Member for Hove (Mr. Marlowe) continue. There is no point of order in what he has raised.

Mr. Marlowe: I have only five minutes in which to say what I have to say. In this country there is an appalling lack of knowledge of the issues involved. I can illustrate this in a number of ways. I have addressed various meetings on this matter. There was one not long ago at which I judge that the audience was divided about fifty-fifty on the issue, and those who opposed the view that I was expressing asked a lot of questions. At the end I said, "Hands up anybody in the room who has read the Treaty of Rome", and not a hand went up.

Mr. Thorpe: Did you put your hand up?

Mr. Marlowe: The oase for our entry into the Common Market has been deployed by the Government with a certain amount of enthusiasm, and a zeal to

conceal from the public exactly what is involved. I am glad to see some Members of Che Liberal Party here. Perhaps at some other time, without interrupting me, they will be able to help me to answer a letter that I received this morning, in which the writer said,
I am disgusted with the Conservative Party going into the Common Market. Next time I shall vote Liberal.
This explains, in one sentence, the obscurities that exist in the public mind about Liberal Party policy.
Who is responsible for this concealment of the facts? [HON. MEMBERS: "The Government."] I agree. It is the Government, especially those Ministers who have been most active in propagating our entry. On the last occasion when we debated the matter the Lord Privy Seal made a very able speech on the economic aspects. He was very clear about them. But when he turned to the political involvement all became vague and obscure. I am sure that this was an attempt to conceal from the people exactly what was involved. I have no doubt that once we step upon this slippery slope of economic unity with Europe we shall have started on Che road to political federation. That is what I object to. I will confine myself entirely to the question of sovereignty, which I think we are on the way to losing if we pursue this policy.
It is quite clear that the inevitable consequence will be a United States of Europe, and I do not want this country to become a province in a United States of Europe. If the people had been told this from the start, and this false name of "Common Market" had not been used, they would have understood the real issues that are involved. But the great majority of people have been led to believe that this is just a commercial tie-up, by which we shall be able to do more trade in Europe. They naturally think that that is a good thing. If at the outset people had been told that this was really the road to a United States of Europe they would have been almost 100 per cent. opposed to our entry. It is for that reason—because the Government are well aware of the emotional content of this matter, that they have been careful never to use any such indication of the road along which we are going.
The First Secretary dealt rather shortly this afternoon with the question of political union with Europe. He said—and these were astounding words to hear from the First Secretary—that when political unity had reached a further stage we should have an opportunity to express our view. Good heavens; I should think we should! But what use will it be at that stage fox us to express our views, when we have already entered into an economic stranglehold which will make it impossible for us to retreat?
The road is undoubtedly towards political unity. It is towards the abandonment of our national sovereignty, and these are matters to which I believe that the Conservative Party should never adhere. Hon. Gentlemen opposite— those in favour of unity—have founded their arguments in the Socialist faith in which they believe and I accept that they do so with sincerity. I hope that they will believe that I equally found my position on what I hold to be the true fundamental belief of Conservatism, which is to maintain the proper independence of this country and to promote the welfare of the Commonwealth. Every step which we take in this direction is derogating from these things.
The right hon. Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch) said today words which imply that those who are opposed to this are insular. That word "insular" has become a dirty word. Why, I do not know. After all, we axe an island people and we cannot help being insular. We were born an island people and nothing can take that away from us.
I hope that the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) will forgive me for going on for a minute over my time. But I will conclude by saying that I believe I speak for the great majority of the people in this country when I say that I do not want to become a European. To be British is good enough for me.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Mr. Wilson.

Mr. Frederick Mulley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. There was some discussion earlier about whether it would be in order for a manuscript Amendment to be moved, on the interruption of business, to continue the debate beyond 10 o'clock. Would you be willing to

accept such an Amendment if it were moved?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sorry, it would not be in order.

9.1 p.m.

Mr. Harold Wilson: I should like to thank the hon. and learned Member for Hove (Mr. Marlowe) for being so courteous. I think it a matter of regret to us all that this debate has been so truncated. Not only was the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman curtailed—and whatever their point of view hon. Members must have felt that it was one really worth making and listening to—but also many hon. Members have not been able to express a view on this important occasion.
The first thing I want to say is that it was right that we should have this debate. It was the duty of the House to have it, and I do not agree at all with the right hon. Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch) who seemed to think that we should have left the whole thing to the Government negotiators in Brussels. Of course, all hon. Members who have spoken recognise that vital negotiations are going on. But that is no reason why this House should remain silent. I do not believe that this debate has in any sense weakened the hands of the negotiators in Brussels. If there was one speech which will weaken their hands, it was the speech of the right hon. Member for Flint, West, because that happens every time right hon. or hon. Gentlemen say, "We must get in, we must get in—we have no alternative— Commonwealth trade is dying"—and all the rest of it. If reports of what has been said in another place—where the Government spokesmen have been more explicit than the ones we have had here —are true, the same weakness has been shown there—this pathetic anxiety to conclude negotiations almost at any cost. Those of us experienced in negotiating—and some of us have had long experience of negotiations carried out under much more difficult circumstances —know that had we begun these negotiations and carried on with them on the basis that at all costs we have got to get into the Common Market we should have had to pay an intolerable price. We are frightened that that is what is happening in Brussels today.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) rightly reminded the House, we were right to press for this debate, because this is probably the last opportunity which hon. Members will have to express their views and to express the warning, which any one of us may want to give, before—what I think is coming very quickly now, and wrongly so—the Government take a decision which will be a fateful decision one way or the other for this country, for Europe and for the world. I want to lend my support to what the right hon. Gentleman said when he pleaded with the Government not to rush into this thing, but to make sure that the negotiations make crystal clear what we are being asked to assent to, and that full consideration is given before any decision is taken. As the signs multiply that some of the most vital issues are being postponed and deferred for settlement after Britain has got into the Common Market, or are being wrapped in a cocoon of verbiage, for that obviously is what is happening, it is more important that we in this House should spell out these issues clearly now. I regret that the Government have not treated this debate more fairly. Apart from the First Secretary, I believe it falls far short of the importance we should attach to this debate that we are not to have a member of the Cabinet to reply.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whom we all wish well on his new appointment and the important job he has to do, will recognise that we are not getting at him in any personal sense, but on an issue of this importance on the eve of this vital decision we should have had a senior Cabinet Minister to reply on behalf of all his colleagues. There are present on the Government Front Bench the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and Secretary of State for the Colonies, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and the President of the Board of Trade. It is utterly wrong that we have not had the Prime Minister and the Chancellor present in this debate. To get the Foreign Secretary as well would be too much to expect, but he is elsewhere.
We have had the speech of the First Secretary. He was courteous, he was urbane, he was ponderous and never has

even he managed to get through twenty-five minutes and to say so little. That is strong language, because his span at the Box goes back for a long time and there have been some classic pieces of stonewalling. He told us nothing at all in the whole of his speech except to trumpet forth one triumph—that our negotiators had ensured that we shall retain our freedom of worship. There is nothing in the Treaty of Rome which says we cannot retain that.
He must have been reading the newspapers, even if he has not been reading Cabinet papers, but he never for one moment showed his hand, or the pair of hands he has dealt himself for dealing with this occasion. As he failed to do it, it is incumbent on the rest of us to get down to cases. In the time available one can pick up only one or two of the salient points.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Belper referred to the problem of planning, whether Socialist planning, Tory planning or planning of any other kind. I am not going to repeat all the arguments used in past debates. Of course we recognise that there is a strong desire in Europe for a form of planning, European planning as opposed to national planning, but let us be clear about this. The aim and objective of that planning is not the same as, for example, the T.U.C. has rightly demanded, planning for full employment. It is planning aimed at holding the ring with conditions for full, free capitalistic competition. That is not what we understand by planning.
I wish there could be a sort of"Hansard"of all the pronouncements of what some of these very skilled, talented but in our view irresponsible public servants have been saying. The Director-General for Competition—what a title! —said that all that happens in the economic field in the E.E.C. is to be the result of free competition and not of dirigisme measures. He went on to say that there would be controls over prices, wages and capital investment, but why should this country not be free to have price control if it is considered desirable? It may well be that that will be an essential concomitant of the National Incomes Council, yet under the Common Market if these gentlemen do not think it right we cannot have it. That is one of our worries.
We have learned by bitter experience in two Governments that planning for full employment and steady industrial expansion in this country is dependent on the avoidance of short-term financial crises. This country, for many reasons, and not least its position in the sterling area, is far more vulnerable to financial crises than most. That is why we must have sufficient planning powers to deal with this problem. It is an elementary national precaution, not a party point.
It may be said that the European Powers will combine to resist an attack on the currency reserves of members. In this respect, it is said that unity is strength, but on what terms will they combine? I do not think I was very fanciful a year ago when I referred to the possibility of a "central bankers' ramp", for these men are narrow-minded on social, and political matters, and it may be that if we had a Government which was, say, nationalising the steel industry, on a mandate from the people, they might find that that policy had to be put into reverse as a condition of the loan which these gentlemen were to give. There might be pronouncements on incomes policy, rents policy or social welfare, and, therefore, this is one of the very serious questions which we should like to see spelled out.
On another aspect, the position of Parliament, I will not go into this in detail, as I did so in the June debate. In the debate in June, I set out, as did the right hon. and learned Member for Hertford (Sir D. Walker-Smith), the very serious implications for Parliament in Article 189, and in the regulations being binding in every respect and directly applicable to each member State. Now, if this is the situation— and I will not repeat all the arguments —what would be the position in regard to Prayers and Statutory Instruments? What would be the position of enabling legisilation? Would Parliament be free to amend that legislation? Would the Sovereign be free to accept a Prayer carded by Parliament? Indeed, would we be free to pray at all? These are very important questions. [An HON. MEMBER: "Freedom of worship."]
The First Secretary said that this was being studied by the Government. He went so far as to promise us a White

Paper in the autumn. This really is fantastic, meaning, first of all, that this House will be asked to take a decision about entering the Common Market, and, after that decision, we are to be given a White Paper to tell us what happens to us. We have our responsibilities and trusteeship not only to those who sat in this House for centuries before us but for those who will sit in centuries to come. We shall be given a White Paper when the decision has been taken. This is one of the things of which we are afraid.
I am sure that I shall unite the whole House when I confess my manifest inability to speak with any authority about agriculture, but I wish to say three things. First, we have always been told that, while deficiency payments are ruled out, as they are, production grants in some form or another, will be or may be tolerated, though when I asked the Minister of Agriculture in the last debate, he had not got a clue about it. I mentioned two items costing £40 million. What is more, he still does not know. If the right hon. Gentleman is able to give me an answer now, I shall be delighted. But, of course, he cannot know the answer because the Europeans do not know the answer.
One point is very clear. We cannot even maintain production grants on a national basis in any shape or form. We shall not be able to apply the hill farming subsidies to Wales, Scotland and the Pennines. All we can do is to try to persuade our European partners —one hopes that we shall be successful —to adopt hill farming grants covering the whole area of the Common Market, so that whatever was granted for Wales and Scotland would apply to the Appenines and the Alps, and to Norway. They may not share our keenness for these production grants, and this would be a very serious blow to agriculture.
There is a second point which I want to make about agriculture. I think that it is clear, as my right hon. Friend said, that the statement about the annual agricultural reviews is meaningless. Our own national price reviews are a guide to action, though, to use the unfortunate phrase of the Lord Privy Seal, there is no automaticity about it; we do not proceed automatically from the publication of the price review to some


decision about incomes and prices. He is right in that respect, but for all that the purpose of the price review each year is to get a picture of the farming profit and earning situation as a guide to production, income and price policy for the year or years ahead.
The annual reviews promised in Europe are no more than statistical exercises. They do not, and probably could not, lead to any action of themselves. We shall have our price reviews in this country but they will be quite academic.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Christopher Soames): The right hon. Gentleman said that from these annual price reviews nothing will flow. There is no substance in this assertion at all. It is laid down in the provisional agreement which was reached in Brussels about a week ago that it is following on this review, and as a direct result of it, that all decisions affecting the common agricultural policy, which of course also means pricing policy, will flow. They will follow as a direct result of these reviews, and decisions will be taken by the Council of Ministers.

Mr. Wilson: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, and I am glad to have got a Cabinet Minister on his feet. But all he has told is just words, words, words. It is obvious that action can flow from it, but there is no provision that action must flow.
May I put a point to the right hon. Gentleman? Let us suppose that agricultural incomes were falling throughout the Community. Of course, it would have to happen on a Community-wide basis; it would be no good going with a hard luck story that they were falling only in Britain. It may be that action would be taken under the clause which, in very vague terms, refers to agricultural incomes. But, of course, action cannot be taken without raising the question of imports policy and therefore of Commonwealth imports. Let us suppose that costs were rising in the Community, perhaps not because of increasing costs here but because of increasing costs in France and Italy, and that margins and producers' incomes were

falling. Have we any guarantee, or even any informal understanding, that action would then be taken? The only instrument which we have is price, and once price is used then everything else is involved, such as the import levy and the tariff, which immediately hits Commonwealth imports.
This brings me to my third point on agriculture. Within the agricultural policy which has been laid down after the 40 days and 40 nights of argument, agricultural security and security for the Commonwealth producers are inevitably, and in my view inescapably, in conflict. I want to ask the House to think about this. On the face of it, the authors of the 1947 Act—principally Tom Williams, Lord Williams as he is now—seemed to have an insoluble problem when they set out to reconcile the problems of the British farmers with those of the suppliers of imported food, especially the Commonwealth producers. I think that my noble Friend achieved a miracle when he provided a reconcila-tion of the problems of imported food and of security for our farmers. But he did it on the basis of guaranteed markets. Even the diluted version of that Act under which we now live, this ramshackle and undependable and costly system of deficiency payments which the right hon. Gentleman defends, provides some reconciliation of the problems of British agriculture and the Commonwealth.
But the task of the Brussels negotiators is to reconcile not two independent variables but three—British agriculture, the Commonwealth and European agriculture; and to begin this superhuman task of trying to solve the whole problem in a few weeks by scrapping the very basis of the 1947 Act, which was guaranteed markets, and which in our case now is deficiency payments. The European system is based on market prices alone— admittedly rigged, manufactured and administered prices at that—but there is no evidence yet of any agreement which can provide security at the same time for the British fanners and for the Commonwealth producers such as we achieved under the 1947 Act.
I turn to the problem of E.F.T.A., which has been raised by a number of hon. Members. There ought to be no


difficulty here. There is a clear commitment on the part of Her Majesty's Government. We regard this as unequivocally binding. We are not free morally or in any other way to pursue our own selfish interests, however we may conceive them, through the negotiations, unless at the same time we secure for our E.F.T.A. partners full safeguards for their economic interests. This is a clear binding Treaty commitment. On this the honour of the Government, and particularly the honour of the new Chancellor of the Exchequer, who made the pledge, is fully involved. Not only that, but I believe that the honour of the House is involved.
But the argument is not based purely or even mainly on this commitment to our E.F.T.A. partners, this binding Treaty obligation. After all, the object of the whole exercise, so we are told— we are repeatedly told this whenever we visit Europe—is to promote the unity of Europe. Are we to achieve the unity of Europe by excluding from economic association on the quite specious ground of their neutrality three countries which are so intrinsically European, three countries so bound up in all of Europe's history as Sweden, Austria and Switzerland? Because they are neutrals, all the signs are that they will be told that all they can have is some bilateral trade agreement, thrown to them as a sort of sop, on the same terms as could be granted to Argentina or the Dominican Republic. Is this promoting the unity of Europe?
Our view is that it is totally wrong to base one's attitude in this on the fact of neutrality, because this means applying a military test. Our view is that the right organisation, the right forum, for pursuing the ideas which inspired the Western Alliance is N.A.T.O. and that membership of N.A.T.O. is not and should not be a test of European status for the purposes of association with the Economic Community.
This naturally leads to the problem of the political future, on which the First Secretary touched this afternoon. He did not tell us very much. I will not repeat all the arguments that we and others have used on this point. I must say, not so much because of the First Secretary's speech, but more because of

what the Lord Privy Seal has said, that the Government's attitude on this is shrouded in ambivalence. There is nothing in the Treaty of Rome requiring a federal or a supranational political organisation in Europe. Equally, all hon. Members who have met Europe's political leaders know that some at any rate of them, and some of the most influential, entirely reject our conception of an inter-governmental Europe and look forward to an integrated foreign office and an integrated defence community. We know that this is not the position of President de Gaulle. As one of my hon. Friends said, his position is that of Europe à I'Anglaise sans les Anglais. The rest of them, particularly M. Spaak, are determined sooner or later to get this federal solution.
I do not believe—this has been made very clear by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition—that public opinion in this country in present and foreseeable circumstances would for one moment agree that we could transfer responsibility for foreign policy, at present under the control of the Government and responsible to Parliament, to a centralised European agency answerable to a European Parliament. This may come, but it is not a political possibility now. I think that the Lord Privy Seal would remove a lot of misunderstanding and avoid many future headaches and heartaches and charges of bad faith if he would state that in Europe as frankly as I have stated it tonight, because I am certain the whole House agrees with What I have said.
I come finally to the Commonwealth. There is time now to deal only with temperate zone foodstuffs. We have heard nothing today from the Government about this. Yet even the Press has been full of detailed reports. Fresh reports were coming in on the ticker-tape from Brussels tonight even before I came into the Chamber.
There are two main issues to be dealt with here. Obviously this is very oversimplified. The first is the ultimate settlement, the position of Commonwealth imports after 1970, what some people have called point X—not how we get to point X, but what point X looks like when we get there. The second issue is the means by which we get there. We have said repeatedly—we must say


it again—that no amount of temporary relief will solve the problem. This is not a problem for some kind of European national assistance board. What matters is the position of Commonwealth trade and Commonwealth imports after 1970, and we shall judge the outcome of the negotiations by what those things look like after 1970 and not by the means of temporary relief that might be introduced between now and 1970.
The Government's position on this began in high hopes over a year ago; in the hope that the interests of Europe and of the Commonwealth could be reconciled; that there was no clash between them. The then President of the Board of Trade, now Chancellor of the Exchequer, said that it was not a choice between Europe and the Commonwealth. We said, "We hope that you are right." But that hope soon died.
The Government then introduced the idea of comparable outlets, which inspired the speech of the Lord Privy Seal in Paris. Can any Minister really say that he feels that we have secured comparable outlets for Commonwealth food in Europe? Of course, the whole agricultural apparatus of the E.E.C. is designed to prevent that sort of thing. Last Friday, we had reports of an agreement said to have been reached but, as far as we can tell from that, all preferences, all guarantees, end by 1970 and, from then on, the negative preference, the reverse preference, begins to operate; that, in fact, from that moment, Commonwealth food will be at a fiscal disadvantage, a levy disadvantage, compared with European food, and that, if any food is to come into the Community area at all, there will be a scramble on equal terms for the British or other European markets between the Commonwealth producers, the Argentine, the United States and all other third countries. That seems to be the position that has been reached.
The Government, of course, are rightly pressing for a form of words—and I hope that we shall get more than words— to ensure that the Market will be out-ward-looking; that it will be low-priced; that it will have substantial imports. Here, of course, words are not enough. We must have something more specific in the form of guarantees. We are told

that there will be commodity agreements, and it is true that we on this side in debate after debate have for years pressed for commodity agreements.
Those hon. Members opposite who say that we have only discovered the Commonwealth should look at our record on Commonwealth trade based—and I tell this to the right hon. Member for Flint, West—not so much on preference as on physical long-term contracts for Commonwealth foodstuffs. Let those hon. Members look at the debate we had—and here I charge my memory —on 3rd February, 1953, when we devoted a lot of time to this particular problem. I had a lot of experience in drawing up the first International Wheat Agreement after the war, but that does not solve the problem of Commonwealth imports.
Again, let us look at sugar. The Lord Privy Seal said that there was no answer there yet. There is an international sugar agreement, but when the Labour Government negotiated that agreement with other countries we knew that it was not enough to provide security for the West Indies, and we had to superimpose on it the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. Now, that is to go; so if it is believed that such agreements provide the answer will the Minister say why it was that when France, supported by other countries, proposed commodity agreements at the G.A.T.T. Conference in Geneva, the Government opposed them?
As the whole House knows, the Guardian is very strongly in favour of our entry into Europe, but on 27th July it headed its story
British Surrender to the Six".
That is the Guardian—not that branch of the Press referred to by the right hon. Member for Flint, West. It concluded its leader by saying:
If the Government have now decided, for the sake of reaching a speedy agreement, to dispense with the guarantees demanded by the Commonwealth, even those who are most in favour of Britain's entry and most anxious to see the negotiations brought to success may feel some qualms.
One has only to look at what was said yesterday by Mr. Menzies. He said that
The Australian Government's aim throughout was to try to make sure that preferences enjoyed inside the Commonwealth continued. …


And Mr. McEwen said that there must be
… adequate opportunities for developing countries to sell at economic prices and earn foreign exchange for their development.
We find that Mr. Holyoake, of New Zealand, said that
… the 'comparable outlets' that New Zealand wanted for her farm produce if Britain joined the E.E.C. must provide for expansion.
and he suggested that we should, perhaps, postpone the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference.
I conclude with the issue facing the House. We are not, as an Opposition, in the position of saying clearly and categorically that we can see our way clear either to supporting or rejecting our entry to the Common Market. We are not saying that, and I hope that the Government are not saying it either, because if they are it would be a complete betrayal of the pledges they gave when the negotiations were opened. We were told that when the terms were known we could then decide our attitude. We have said that all along, and we have had some fairly squalid jibes thrown up at us, not least by the Prime Minister to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition last week.
If one is buying a horse one likes to know the terms and also the condition it is in. Here we are faced with an enormously important decision. All I would say, therefore, is that we must have the chance, as a House, of deciding the issue. It may be that although the outlook is not hopeful, satisfactory terms will be obtained. My right hon. Friend has said that the best possible solution would be our being able to get in on good terms. But if the terms are such that we cannot accept them, then in these circumstances it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the issue must be referred to a higher court of appeal.
We reject the idea of a referendum. It is alien to our constitution. But if—and this is, of course, hypothetical—the Government in their rush and hurry to get in declare their willingness to sign on terms which amount to no more than a form of words, and if this means that the Opposition, and I cannot forecast our attitude, as a powerful and, perhaps, preponderant force of public opinion regard the terms as unacceptable, then

there would have, I submit, to be an appeal to the country, because it would be utterly repugnant to our constitutional practice and utterly damaging to Britain and Europe alike if a dying Government should seek to lead a divided country into Europe.

9.33 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Peter Smithers): I am obliged to the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) for his kind tribute to me, although it was wrapped up with one or two other things which I know were not personally meant. I followed his speech with interest and some anxiety, but I was glad to find that at the end of it he was left, quite properly, firmly sitting on the fence until, if I may say so, he knows the price of the horse. That seems to me to be a vary prudent attitude.
The right hon. Member for Huyton began his speech by saying that he did not want the Government to rush into this matter. We are, of course, sometimes accused of the fact that the negotiations have been unduly prolonged, but that is really a matter of common sense. It is, on the one hand, necessary to ascertain with great precision what the problems are and how they are to be dealt with. On the other hand, we must not delay unduly because great interests in this country and elsewhere are awaiting the outcome and I think that we should push on as quickly as the circumstances permit.
The right hon. Member for Huyton said that vital issues were being postponed until after we were in the Common Market. That is not so. There must be many stages before we are finally in the Common Market—if, indeed, we join it—and ratification is among them. Such vital issues could certainly not be postponed. They are, of course, being dealt with from day to day. I was sorry that the right hon. Member took in a rather light vein the references of my right hon. Friend the First Secretary to freedom of worship. To some people in this country this is a serious worry and my right hon. Friend was right in saying something to reassure those people.
The purpose of the Common Market, said the right hon. Member for Huyton, is, "Planning for a full and free capitalistic economy". I do not think that he


can have studied the Treaty of Rome. At any rate, he has certainly arrived at a very different conclusion from his Socialist colleagues on the Continent of Europe, who seem to have supported it with enthusiasm.
The right hon. Member then mentioned the question of Prayers and Statutory Instruments and the position of this House in constitutional matters. He went on to say that my right hon. Friend had promised a White Paper after we entered the Common Market. My right hon. Friend, of course, promised nothing of the kind. He promised a White Paper. I am sure that it will be available long before we are in the Common Market.
The right hon. Member went on to speak of the neutrals, and he gave a little advice as to what the position of the neutrals should be. I would have thought that the neutrals were well able to make up their own minds on this and that they show every sign of knowing what they want. He went on to say that some politicians in Europe hold views different from ourselves on federation. Of course, they do. I do not think that is a very surprising discovery, nor one that need alarm us very much.
The right hon. Gentleman then sought to bury the sugar agreements. This matter, as he knows, is under negotiation at the present time. He asked why, at the G.A.T.T. Conference in February, 1962, Her Majesty's Government voted against international agreements. We did not vote against them. That seems to be the answer to that one.

Mr. H. Wilson: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us why the Lord Privy Seal, when I asked him at Question Time last week about this, said something different? Did we vote against them or not? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will sort that out with the Lord Privy Seal.

Mr. Smithers: I have already given the right hon. Gentleman the answer as to what we did.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to demand a General Election. I think that he had better wait and see what the position is before he reiterates that demand.
In opening the debate the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) said

a number of things with which we would very much agree. He also had one or two misconceptions which perhaps I may be able to say something about. He will find that the voting rights concerning agriculture are set out in Article 43 (2) of the Treaty of Rome. There is no mystery about that. He spoke of the deadline against which we are negotiating. We are not negotiating against a deadline. I have explained what the position is.

Mr. G. Brown: How can what is set out in Article 43 (2) of the Treaty of Rome, which deals only with the Six, apply to an enlarged Community when we, Denmark and Norway and perhaps others join? I was asking what the weight of voting rights will be in the enlarged Community.

Mr. Smithers: The right hon. Gentleman must know that in the enlarged Community the voting rights will be calculated when one knows precisely who is joining it.

Mr. Brown: It is not in Article 43.

Mr. Smithers: It is in Article 43.

Mr. Turton: Will my hon. Friend give the right Article?

Mr. Speaker: If the Joint Undersecretary does not give way, the hon. Member must resume his seat.

Mr. Turton: Article 43 (2), which I have before me, has nothing to do with voting rights. Will my hon. Friend give us the right Article?

Mr. Smithers: The Article which deals with voting rights specifies that there is unanimity to the year 1966 and thereafter a qualified majority vote.
I now turn to another point made by the right hon. Member for Belper. He spoke of the ability, or otherwise, to plan national economies within the Common Market. In that respect, I must refer him, in part, to his hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd), who explained that matter. The fact is that there is nothing in the Treaty of Rome which prevents national planning.
The right hon. Member for Belper also had a number of things to say which, I think, could be included in a category of bogies under the bed. He


said that the arrangements were vague and woolly. He knows quite well that these arrangemants are largely under negotiation, and that if he were on this side of the House he would not be able to be precise about matters which are still Jar from settled. The right hon. Member emphasised the need for a great precision and for making sure that everybody understands precisely what the other parties mean by what they say. I am sure my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal is very conscious of that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir A. Hurd) made an impressive speech on the agricultural issues. Her Majesty's Government share his anxieties that the price policies to be settled in the Common Market should be such that there will be a proper balance in production. This will clearly have to be worked out over a long period. I do not think that at the moment I can go beyond the statement of the Lord Privy Seal of 23rd July. I must, however, say to the right hon. Member for Huyton, who referred to the 1947 Agriculture Act, and said that it suited the farmers and the Commonwealth so well, "It did in those days. But we are not now living in 1947, and other and different measures are required".
Her Majesty's Government stand by all the undertakings which have been given to the House, to the Commonwealth and to the European Free Trade Association. These have been affirmed many times by my right hon. Friends. When the present phase of the negotiations has been concluded, and when the outcome has been considered by the Commonwealth Prime Ministers, the Government will recommend to the House whatever course seems to them to be in the best interests of this country. The House will then form its own conclusions.
I can, however, assure the House that if these negotiations fail to secure terms which, in the Government's view, provide adequate protection for the interests of Britain, the Commonwealth and our partners in the European Free Trade Association, we shall certainly not sacrifice those interests in order to enter the European Community.
I think that it is generally agreed that one cannot draw a hard and fast line

between what is political and what is economic. The E.E.C. is seeking to bring about the reality of a common political purpose by constructing a single and powerful economic framework. Their propose is political, and so is ours. They are going about it in the order always advocated by successive British ministerial speakers at the Council of Europe. We are already interdependent with them in many economic and financial matters. For example, all our currencies are dependent upon the cooperation of others, and none more so than sterling. The establishment of the O.E.E.C.—largely a British initiative— and the great success of its work confirmed and developed this interdependence.
The plain truth now is that in many important respects our sovereignty can only be exercised effectively in conjunction with others. The Treaty of Rome is, therefore, the bold and logical extension of a situation which already exists. In such circumstances, what are we to make of the old maxim that Parliament can do everything but make a woman a man and a man a woman? We must not pretend to ourselves that we in Parliament can exercise unrestricted sovereignty simply by passing resolutions. The resolutions may well be legal, but the point is: can we be sure of giving them effect? Sovereignty is surely concerned with the practical exercise of power rather than with the passing of resolutions on paper.
In return for the pooling of a portion of our sovereignty in certain restricted and carefully defined fields, the Treaty of Rome would give us a share in the exercise of a wider and more effective sovereignty over a far larger area in terms of people and resources. This is a feature of other treaties to which we are a party and is coming to be recognised as the most practical method of exercising sovereignty in a world which is increasingly interdependent.

Mr. W. Baxter: Coming from Scotland, I am very interested in national sovereignty. I hope that this will be a lesson to the hon. Gentleman. We who come here from Scotland are dependent upon the generosity of English Members as to when we may speak or what we shall get. The same may apply to England if she goes into the Common Market.

Mr. Smithers: I have not noticed that Scotland has any difficulty in asserting its influence in the House or anywhere else.
The fear is sometimes expressed that, if we enter the Common Market, we shall be ruled by others. Of course, hon. Members are right in pressing us to make sure that the rules of the Community are fair and equitable so far as we are concerned. But, given that they are—and, of course, we should not join unless we were satisfied about that—I am astonished to find that there are people who doubt our ability to hold our own with our neighbours in Europe. Contrary to a widely expressed view, I am sure that British labour is well able to hold its own. There is no reason to doubt that in industry our scientists, our designers and our manufacturers can hold their own. Is it not ludicrous to suggest that our farming industry, which is among the most efficient in the world, cannot meet its European counterpart with credit, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury suggested?
Our administrators, who will take part in the Commission, will certainly be inferior to none in Europe. Our lawyers are able to argue with the best of them in the court. I do not doubt that our Ministers, of whatever party, will equit themselves well in the Council. Looking round the House, I do not see any reason whatever why Members of Parliament should not hold their own in the Assembly.
I suggest that we ought to ask ourselves whether our entry into the Community would not in fact, make a substantial difference to it. Would it be more or less acceptable to our friends in the Commonwealth and the world at large if we were in it? Our friends and allies seem to share the confidence of Her Majesty's Government that we can play an important and constructive part within the Community.
It seems a curious misreading of European politics to assume, as some do —my right hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch) pointed this out —that all foreigners are hostile to us, or that they would think it in their interest, or indeed, be able, to unite or gang up against us. The truth is quite the contrary. No country in the world, and certainly none in Europe, has more

friends than Britain. Because our policies are moderate and sensible, experience over many years has shown that, so far from our encountering monolithic hostility in Europe, on the great majority of issues most European States tend to agree with the British viewpoint.
We have common interests; they share our outlook in international affairs, and they have worked closely with us in W.E.U., the Council of Europe, the O.E.E.C, N.A.T.O., and the O.E.C.D. To pretend otherwise is to underestimate the strength of our political position in Europe and to do a great injustice to ourselves.
I have already spoken of sovereignty and I want to continue with that theme in connection with political organisation. Here, I shall return to what the right hon. Member for Belper was saying, and I hope that I shall be able to convey to him the meaning of political organisation as we understand it. A new political organisation in Europe is something quite separate, and there could be no question of our accepting any commitment in the field of political union without the authority of Parliament—as there could not in the case of the European Community. In it the problem of sovereignty will not arise to anything like the same extent as under the Treaty of Rome. The plans which the Six have been discussing for European political union do not provide for any sort of majority voting or centralised decisions such as are to be found in the Treaty.
Perhaps the word "union" has misled some people. Policy decisions would all, in fact, be taken unanimously by the member Governments, and there is no question of our being asked to accept any federal system. But if we join the political union we share in directing and exercising the immense influence which a united Europe would have in world affairs. We shall want to play our full part in the creation of a common European point of view on political questions in the widest sense as well as on the economic questions. Therefore, the decision of the Six to try to form a political union is, we think, to be welcomed, not regretted. We share their aims and look forward to being able to join with them in this new task.
It is often said that we have a choice between Europe and the Commonwealth.


I thought that this rather hoary old chestnut had long since fallen to the ground. Provided that the outstanding points of controversy can be settled satisfactorily, the Commonwealth has much to gain from a successful outcome of the negotiations. By it Britain can bring Commonwealth countries into a fruitful relationship with the market, the capital resources, the skill and the political strength of Europe. If any hon. Members doubt this, or doubt that membership of the Common Market would strengthen Britain's position in the Commonwealth, I ask them to ponder this single figure. At present, India and Pakistan are receiving for their current development plans from the Common Market about twice as much aid as we are able to give them. Would we prefer to be associated with that effort or to be contrasted with it?
The art, I take it, of foreign policy consists in taking full account of the trend of the times in which we live and in turning it to advantage. The emergence of great centres of power—the United States, the Soviet Union, China and the European Community—is part of a long historical process. The tiny warring kingdoms of England were first united and ruled one thousand years ago from Winchester. Those who ignore this long historical process do so at their peril.
It was to confront this process that the founders of the European movement, among whom my right hon. Friends the Members for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) and Streatham (Mr. Sandys) were prominent, and which included many other hon. Members, set themselves a constructive task of organisation —nothing less than to use the vast resources of Europe in manpower, skill and materials, its cultural and spiritual values, for a co-operative effort for the common good.
I ask the House to consider the significance of the figures involved in this process. The population of the United Kingdom is 53 million; that of other member States of E.F.T.A. and associates is 41 million; that of the European Economic Community and associates is 230 million; and that of the Commonwealth and dependencies 670 million. Those are the populations which it is sought to bring into a har-

monious and efficient economic system of interdependence in varying degrees. It is obvious that such a vast enterprise with nearly 1,000 million people within it must, if it succeeds, have profound consequences for the world as a whole.

Mr. Harold Davies: Mr. Harold Davies (Leek) rose—

Mr. Smithers: Not at this hour.
It will provide the British people and the E.F.T.A. Powers with sufficient opportunities in manufacturing and trade in a vast market requiring increasing quantities of the goods they can produce. It will provide them with the means of dealing with a whole range of problems on a wider front in co-operation with others. It will enable us to avoid perpetuating in Africa the economic divisions of Europe, and thus greatly help in the development of that Continent.
In the provision of development assistance, it will associate us with vast resources of capital. In the wider field still, it will be the longest step yet taken to that world-wide freeing of trade channels which has been the established policy of all British and American Governments since the end of the war and without which neither we nor our friends can develop our potentialities to the fullest extent.
For some years the preponderance of power moved steadily from Europe to the United States, but that position is now challenged by the increased might of the Communist world. A successful outcome of these negotiations would reverse both processes. In the first place, it would restore a better balanced structure to the free world. President Kennedy has outlined this new structure in his recent imaginative and welcome proposals for an Atlantic partnership, inking the United States and a united Europe, and serving turn as "a nucleus for the union of all free men".
Secondly, the free world itself would be so fortified by such a reorganisation that there would be a decisive shift in the world balance of wealth and power in favour of the forces of freedom. Those are some of the prizes which can be won from a successful conclusion of the negotiations.
I have long believed that the key to a better structure of world politics lies, perhaps surprisingly, in Europe. These


negotiations have revealed that this is the case. I have also long believed that the key to the structure of Europe is British participation in its affairs. Her Majesty's Government ask the House to accept that view.

Mr. S. Silverman: Mr. S. Silverman rose in his place, and claimed to move, That the Question be now put; but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.

Mr. Smithers: Though we hardly seem to recognise the fact for what it is, our country is once again offered the key rôle in world politics. So far from the historic destiny of the British people being played out, new and great vistas of opportunity are opening before us. They are of a magnitude sufficient to absorb and expand the creative genius of our people over a century.
This is the challenge before the House and the country in the months immediately ahead of us. The issues transcend party division and I hope that the House will agree that they are of an order of importance rising far above considerations of party advantage. As we approach what may be the most fateful decisions ever to confront our country —and it was the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas), who said that in his opinion it was the most important decision since 1066—Her Majesty's Government appeal to the House and the nation to discard present passions and historical prejudices.
I should like, if I may, to pay tribute to the eloquent and moving appeal of my right hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West to that effect. I do not see how it is possible to judge a matter of this—

Mr. S. Silverman: Mr. S. Silverman rose in his place, and claimed to move, That the Question be now put; but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.

Mr. Smithers: I was saying that I do not see how a decision on this vital matter can be arrived at by the people of this country if they are confused by the passions and prejudices which seem to occupy the Press to such a large extent and which seem to be the motives of many people engaging in this controversy. I therefore join in my right

hon. Friend's appeal for a calm estimate of what is here involved.
We can then judge not the aspect of this matter which happens to affect us directly, or to engage our emotions, but the broad general consequences for mankind as we in this House and our people face the greatest decision of our times.

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed. without Question put.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Rees-Davies

Mr. S. Silverman: I beg to move, That the Question be now put.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member cannot move that the Question be put after it has lapsed.

Mr. Michael Foot: On a point of order. Is it not absolutely unprecedented in the history of the House of Commons that on a major issue of this character—Britain's negotiations with the Common Market—on which some Members wish to divide the House, that the proposition should be fairly put to you that the Question be put, that you should refuse this proposition on two occasions, and then allow the debate to be talked out by Government action? Surely this is an absolutely unprecedented action by a Speaker.

Mr. S. Silverman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would respectfully draw your attention to the fact that on a previous occasion I was anxious that the House should have an opportunity of expressing its opinion by collecting the voices and dividing in the Lobbies, and that I was denied that opportunity.
On this occasion I think that one of my hon. Friends drew your attention, or the attention of the occupant of the Chair at the time, to the fact that there were a number of hon. Members who wished at this grave and critical moment to make it quite clear that they were against this whole proposition and wished to divide against it. So that there should be no doubt about our desire on this point, I ventured to claim to move that the Question be put at five minutes to ten, at three minutes to ten, and, in my opinion, just before ten o'clock.
On the first two occasions you declined to accept it. The hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary was clearly moving towards the end of his final peroration and it was perhaps common courtesy to allow him to finish, but courtesy is carried too far if it is carried to the point where the Members of the House of Commons, at a time when the Constitution and sovereignty of this country are about to be betrayed by Her Majesty's Government, without any mandate and without any authority—[HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."]—are denied the opportunity of expressing our opinions in the Lobbies. This is absolutely disgraceful.

Mr. Speaker: I take full responsibility—

Mr. Silverman: You have no business to.

Mr. Speaker: —for declining, after due consideration, to accept the Motion for the Closure in the circumstances of the manifestly rather truncated debate that we were able to have today. In refusing to accept the Closure, I am the servant of the House, as in all things, and should the House think it wrong I would desire it to deal with me appropriately, but I cannot permit discussion of the matter now.

Mr. Silverman: I venture, very respectfully, to draw your attention to another fact, Mr. Speaker. I think that I was the first Member of the House to move in the House a ballotted-for Motion about the Common Market. On that occasion we had a very good debate, though I agree that it was limited to three hours. At the end of that three-hour debate, which was a fairly full one, you refused to allow a vote to be taken on the ground that the matter had not been sufficiently discussed.
It has been discussed time and time and time again since then, and on this occasion—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] I protest most strongly about this. It is—

Hon. Members: Order.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is almost always courteous to the Chair. He must be, not only on any personal

basis but because it is necessary to do so in the interests of the office of the Chair. I hope that I have made it quite clear beyond any mistake or doubt that I cannot allow discussion on this matter now.

Mr. M. Foot: Further to that point of order.

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must resume his place. There is an appropriate procedure for dealing with me if I have done wrong. That can be adopted, and the matter can be discussed then, but my authority from the House does not allow me to permit an irregular discussion of the matter now.

Mr. S. Silverman: Further to that point of order. May I say at once that nothing that I have said was intended to make any personal reflection, or to show any lack of courtesy—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I entirely accept that from the hon. Member, but by persisting against my clear indication that I cannot permit a discussion of the matter now, and that I have no authority to do so, the hon. Member may get into a position of committing some disrespect, which I am sure he does not wish to create.

Mr. Silverman: I think that you are aware, Mr. Speaker—as all of us are aware—that the procedure that you are inviting me to adopt cannot easily or conveniently be adopted at this time in the Session. There is no time for it— and you perfectly well know that there is no time for it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I want to take this opportunity of expressing, on the record of the House, my profound dissent from the decision which you have given. It is one that the House—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have a personal dislike of, and a slight boredom about, martyrdom.

Mr. M. Foot: I do not know what business it is of yours, Mr. Speaker, to talk about martyrdom in such circumstances. My hon. Friend was making a protest because he was denied, as others are being denied, the right to vote on a matter which we believe to be of


absolutely major importance for the future of this country. We have been denied the right to vote, and you have said that you would not give your reasons, or explain your reasons, why you had reached this decision— although, in another aside, you did so, when you said that the reason why you had refused to accept by hon. Friend's Motion in these circumstances was that the debate had been truncated. I do not believe that that is a ground on which the House of Commons, departing for three months, should be denied the right to give its view whether these negotiations should go ahead. Therefore, I ask you to withdraw the reference you made to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Speaker: I am getting a little weary of this. The House can deal with me if I am wrong. I desire the House— and I think it is right—to get on.

Mr. Gilbert Longden: On a point of order. Lest any reader of these proceedings should be left under any misapprehension, I would like to place on record the fact that although the Government benches are fairly full, the Opposition benches consist of 30 Members, including seven Members of the Liberal Party.

Mr. L. M. Lever: Is the hon. Member including me?

TRIBUNALS AND INQUIRIES (INQUIRIES AND PROCEDURE)

10.9 p.m.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Compulsory Purchase by Local Authorities (Inquiries Procedure) Rules, 1962 (S.I., 1962, No. 1424), dated 9th July, 1962, a copy of which was laid before this House on 13th July, be annulled.
One thing is undeniable; from what the hon. Members opposite have been saying it is clear that Members of the House of Commons would indeed provide a forceful debating assembly in the Common Market. If what we have heard just now is anything to go by, there is not the slightest doubt that, whether or not hon. Members opposite may later want to join us in the Common Market, they will certainly have the courage and nerve necessary for the debates which will take place in due course.
The matters that we are discussing now raise the issue of the liberty of the subject. If there is one thing that is clear it is this: that the subjects that we are about to discuss are among those to which we can make the greatest possible contribution if we should enter the Common Market.
I am sure that those who are interested in the procedure for the compulsory acquisition of land and the procedure relating to the town planning rules and regulations in the event of the acquisition of property, or of applying the rules of procedure that relate thereto, will all agree that in one field at least this country has an over-riding sense of responsibility, and that is to preserve for the people of this country full and fair play in matters which affect their interests and their property. I think that it would have been wholly wrong, therefore, if one had not taken the opportunity tonight to raise this matter by way of a negative Resolution.
I would remind the House that these two matters which Mr. Speaker has given permission to be discussed together and in which in their layout and general format clearly fall to be discussed together, arise originally from the findings of the Franks Committee. Following the findings of that Committee, as the House will remember, the

Government passed the Tribunals and Inquiries Act, 1958, and set up the Council of Tribunals. That Council has made various recommendations and, through the Lord Chancellor, have now been laid these Rules.
The Rules are laid under Section 7A and they provide for the widest recognition and for rules to be laid governing these procedures. They are of the greatest importance to many citizens in this country. It so happens that under Section 7A the Rules are not laid by the affirmative Resolution of this House and the matter may be discussed only on a negative Resolution. There are some matters of criticism which I wish to raise tonight. It would be idle to say that in the main it will not be a great event when these resolutions come into effect in October. Dealing first with the general position regarding both of them the situation in the country today is anomalous. I ask the Government to take very careful note that under the town planning regulations, for example, we have four main parties, the applicant, the objectors—I will say more as to who really constitutes an objector— the local authorities and Her Majesty's Government.
If the applicant is refused permission, the whole power of the governmental machinery comes into effect under the town planning regulations. But if, perchance, the applicant is given permission by the delegated authority—usually the local authority—that is an end of the matter and there is nothing whatever that the objector can do. Thus the general position which we find tonight is that there is a substantial difference regarding the procedures which these regulations lay down, which are of great benefit to the applicant, but which may, and indeed frequently are at present, of no benefit at all to the objector. It is fundamental, therefore, that this matter should be discussed. I hope that it will be widely publicised to those who have a real concern in these matters because to the estate agents, the surveyors, the municipal associations, the town clerks and all those concerned with town planning it is of very real importance that those who are engaged in minor capacities in the local authorities, in the county councils and the local councils, should


read these regulations and seek to carry into effect the purpose of them in their own affairs.
I give an example from my district. Recently in the town of Birchington there was a great outcry because of a large amount of high building in part of that town which hitherto has had very low buildings, a large number of bungalows and one-storey buildings. As a result, the immediate neighbours to the applicants and citizens and burgesses of the town were in many cases deeply aggrieved by the permission granted by the local authority. Yet once it had been granted it would be impossible for the Minister to over-rule the granting of that permission without having to give compensation to the applicant because the permission had already been granted. Then the Minister refused to accede to the suggestion of a public inquiry. So it came about that there was no real opportunity—whether it was right or wrong I do not seek to argue— for the neighbours or citizens to raise their true and proper objections to what affected the planning of their town.
This is true throughout the country. Consequently, local authorities have asked me to make suggestions on how this should be brought about. Imagine my pleasure to find that at this time the Government have come forward with a code of regulations which in very large effect will enable such matters to be remedied in future. One of the matters for which I ask is that the Government and the Minister, be it the Solicitor-General or the Minister of Housing and Local Government, should make clear to local authorities that they shall give just as much regard to the position of the objector who may be a neighbour or the citizens of the town or societies which often represent themselves in those towns on behalf of burgesses as they will give a fair and legitimate hearing to any other objector. That is part of the very important background to the matters before us tonight.
I shall deal with one or two matters on the planning regulations. As I have indicated, they are substantially the same. One of the most important things is this. The trouble about lawyers—and I speak as one—is that we tend in trying to defend, and legitimately and properly to

defend, the interests of those who have matters which ought to be considered, to forget also that housing and town planning construction today is a matter Which requires the greatest possible expedition. Therefore we must try to achieve the objectives we seek and at the same time do so expeditiously.
I was frankly rather worried when picking up the Rules to see that in both cases in paragraph 4 (3), the date, time and place for the holding of an inquiry, be it a compulsory purchase inquiry or a town planning inquiry, shall be fixed but may be varied by the Minister who shall give not less than forty-two days' notice unless all the parties agree to a further period. We cannot amend regulations or I would have asked that this be amended to twenty-eight days instead of forty-two and that the other periods should be shortened by seven days.
At the moment it takes a very long time. By the time the application is put in and has been discussed when there is to be an inquiry there are forty-two days and something like three or four months pass before the inquiry is fixed. Unfortunately, because of the considerable quantity of work which the Ministry has there is usually a further three months before the result is known. The effect of this is a delay of anything from seven to nine months. If in the outcome permission is to be granted that may have a very serious effect on the construction and planning of the work to be carried out.
I ask that if the House passes these regulations as they stand the Minister should send out a circular at the same time asking all local authorities, where possible, to limit that amount of time and not to permit the full forty-two days to run if it can possibly be shortened. I hope the objectors will not be encouraged to try to put off the evil hour, if I may put it that way, for some little further time.
That is one matter. Another matter of importance is contained in paragraph 5 (2). I appreciate the difficulties, but there a discretion is given to the appointed person holding the inquiry to allow any other person to appear at that inquiry in his discretion. There has already been laid down reference to the particular objector, the planning authority and certain other parties, and the


question has been raised in another place, and also by the council in its consideration, what would be the position and who would be an objector? Who is the aggrieved person?
For example, supposing that in the instance I gave of Birchington, or in Margate or Ramsgate, a perfectly legitimate policy decision is made by the council that in future it would build all its buildings to a height of ten or twelve storeys. We might well find that all the best people able to give an opinion on this matter were in the local chamber of trade. It may be that there is some local preservation society, or that there is a local association of architects. It may be one of a number of different bodies, and the question which therefore arises in a matter of that kind is that the party aggrieved is not necessarily the immediate neighbour. I am not suggesting that the immediate neighbour is not the person most likely to be aggrieved, but it may be wider than that.
It may be that the town as a whole has taken up a matter of this kind and may regard itself as consisting of aggrieved persons. It is, therefore, of considerable importance that we should have some guidance from the Minister tonight as to who are to be considered the persons who may reasonably appear at the inquiry at the discretion of the appointed person, and what sort of guidance will be given to the inspectors. The inspectors are admirable people, and those of us who know them would pay them the highest tribute for their endeavours to carry out their functions satisfactorily, but, in doing so, what Ministerial guidance are they to receive?
Supposing various local bodies turn up at the inquiry, perhaps represented by counsel, as not infrequently they do. What will the inspector say to them? Will he say that this affects merely a small planning matter, to which they will reply that they know perfectly well that there are plans which will cover the whole town in the same way? What will be his reply in those circumstances? I agree that we must draw the line somewhere, and that we cannot have everybody turning up. Recently, I had the opportunity of seeing the circumstances which arose in the case of the closure of a branch railway line, where the whole town wanted to turn up, but by the common consent of the local

community, they decided that it could all be done through their various councils and chambers of trade jointly represented. What happens if people insist on turning up? In this case, one parish council insisted on turning up on its own. There is not all that difference between the closing of a branch railway line and some of the large, major redevelopment schemes in our main towns. I think that is of considerable importance.
This regulation carries into effect in many other regards many of the most important measures. It provides that there should be a full hearing. One of the most important provisions is that the Minister, if so desired, shall send a representative from his Department to attend the inquiry and to explain the reasons for it. Furthermore, the procedure whereby other Government Departments made secret representations, about which we knew nothing, is replaced by a provision whereby these representations shall be open and shall take place at the inquiry. I am sure that the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot), who sits lonely on the Opposition benches, and who understands these matters so well, will agree with me and with my right hon. Friend that this is an important advance.
It has already been shown that these inspectors are well able to make a written report to their Minister, whether they obtain assistance subsequently from those who are senior in the Department or not—and I care not. Their reports seem good. I am sure that the Ministry have at last come to appreciate that the existence of a report and the fact that the Minister has to reach a decision and to give reasons for it mean that the procedure carries much greater weight with the public.
The Minister has to do this because he was forced to do so by the terms of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act and by many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, some of whom are not in the Chamber at the moment, some of whom are former Cabinet Ministers and some of whom are Ministers today. There was a strong feeling in the Government Department that they should not make public what might be a matter of policy.
In paragraph 6 they have had a crack at introducing this provision by saying


that at the inquiry the Minister's representative shall elucidate the statement of the reasons given for the Minister's direction, not being questions which in the opinion of the appointed person
are directed to the merits of Government policy ".
The inspector may well be in some difficulty in deciding whether to rule that it is a question of Government policy.
I am sure that this has led to great debate in the Ministry of Housing where they no doubt thought that there would be difficulties. I do not believe that there are difficulties. The common sense of the inspectors and the tolerance and generally reasonable attitude of those who appear at inquiries means that this will not work satisfactorily. Many people may ask whether we are not throwing a burden on to an administrator which it is not fair for him to have to carry. But I think that the procedure will work satisfactorily. At the conclusion of an inquiry we shall find that the source of friction and irritation and many of the objections have been removed and that the citizen accepts the position. That is the democratic process.
The compulsory purchase rule works in a different way. There the local authority is put into the position of applicant. The burden of proof is thrown on the local authority to establish its case. There may be objectors to the compulsory acquisition of land. A decision has to be taken by the Minister, and this is a referable issue. The position is quite different. If a local authority is minded to acquire certain land it knows that if it applies the compulsory purchase procedure it may be faced with an inquiry. If, on the other hand, it can persuade someone to purchase the land and gives him permission to develop it—from which there is no appeal—it may later acquire it from him by consent. In that way the authority can get round it without any power of objection or difficulty.
One matter which I have been raising with the Ministry about the future is this. In future there will be a very close liaison between local authorities and property companies and builders. The local authority will probably have some land available. There may be another parcel of land which is not available. The local

authority wants to enter into a partnership scheme in which the builders or property companies will develop. The authority wants to be able to control the planning of the land. Thus, if the authority can ensure that the land is taken over by the property developer who acquires it first, it gives permission and pays little heed to the objectors' point of view. The whole matter can then go through easily. If an authority applies the procedure in the Rules, it will be faced with a detailed and almost quasi-judicial inquiry.
I therefore ask the Minister—it is his responsibility rather than that of my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, who will be dealing with what I may call the Franks side of the matter —to bear this whole question in mind and make it clear to local authorities that, if these Rules do not of themselves suffice to ensure that the proper standards of justice, for both applicant and objector, apply he will not hesitate to take the necessary sanctions to ensure that there is protection for all.
You, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, will have appreciated by now that I do not particularly desire to annul the Rules.

10.32 p.m.

Mr. Niall MacDermot: The whole House will be grateful to the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) for having moved to annul these Rules, even if in a somewhat halfhearted manner as to his desire for annulment. This gives us the only opportunity we can have to discuss and analyse these very important new Rules.
We would all begin by welcoming the Rules, which apparently are the first of a series governing different kinds of tribunals and inquiries which all come within the ambit of the Council on Tribunals and Inquiries. Of necessity most of my remarks will appear critical, because they are directed to raising detailed points. I want to make it clear from the outset that I most warmly welcome the appearance of these Rules. Many of them are only putting now into statutory form the very greatly improved practice which has been adopted for some time following the Report of the Franks Committee.
My first point arises under Rule 2 (a) and is as to the scope of these Rules.


They are limited at the moment to appeals under Section 16. I ask for an assurance that it is proposed without delay to publish rules concerning applications under Section 15. Section 16 appeals are the ordinary appeals under the Town and Country Planning Act against a refusal of planning permission. It is laid down in that Section that these appeals shall be dealt with by the same procedure as is laid down in Section 15. Section 15 deals with applications for planning permission which are called in by the Minister and which he himself will decide instead of leaving them to the local planning authority to decide. These are for the most part the more important applications, ones which raise important policy issues. That is why, by and large, the Minister calls them in.
It certainly seems anomalous that we should have the Rules laid down for the ordinary planning appeals but have no Rules laid down for the procedure in what may be the much more important cases coming under Section 15. I can appreciate that one cannot have exactly the same Rules covering both sets of inquiries—in particular, the procedure before an inquiry will be different in the Section 15 case as compared with that coming under Section 16—but bearing in mind that they are important, and one can think of the example of the North Oxfordshire Ironstone case, it is obvious that we should soon have Rules to cover that type of case.
My next point relates to Rule 4 (9), and here I simply ask what is meant by the phrase "person interested". The Rule provides that:
The local planning authority shall afford any other person interested a reasonable opportunity to inspect and, where practicable, to take copies of the authority's statement and the other documents referred to in the last foregoing paragraph.
In other words, that gives a right to "any other person interested"—whatever that may mean—to see the planning authority's own statement and supporting documents in the same way as the appellant himself will be able to.
I am not sure what is meant by a "person interested." It cannot mean a person with a legal interest in the land, because he is already covered; he is one of the persons whose rights are protected as a Section 37 party. If it means a

person who may be injuriously affected, as it were—the kind of objector to whom the hon. Member referred, the neighbouring owner—how is he to be distinguished from any other objector? If it merely means a person who is taking an interest in the appeal, in the ordinary colloquial sense, there would not seem to be any need to define him as a person interested; it would be any person.
I should therefore like to be told what is meant by the term. It is not defined in the Rules. And when a person says, "I am a person interested, and I want to take a copy of your statement," how is the local planning authority to decide whether or not he is, in fact, a person interested?
I turn, next, to Rule 5 (4), and ask to what it is directed. It deals with appeals at the inquiry:
Where there are two or more persons having a similar interest in the matter under inquiry the appointed person may allow one or more persons to appear for the benefit of some or all persons so interested.
It is already provided in the previous paragraph that any person
… may appear on his own behalf or be represented by counsel, solicitor or any other person.
He does not need the consent of the inspector for that. Any person who is entitled to appear can be represented by any other person.
What is this Rule directed to? What is meant by "persons having a similar interest" in any inquiry? It is a local interest, or not? And what is meant by a person appearing for the benefit of some other person, as contrasted to a person who represents some other person, which is dealt with in the previous paragraph? I merely seek an explanation, because I cannot follow the distinction.
I move on to Rule 7 (3)—a point touched on the hon. Member. It deals with the question of the duty of the inspector, as it is under these Rules, to
… disallow any questions which in his opinion are directed to the merits of Government policy.
I can see that one does not want a planning inquiry turned into a wrangle about whether or not the Government are adopting the right policy in a particular matter. But clearly, if one is to be


able intelligently to cross-examine a representative of a Government Department at an inquiry, one needs to probe the policy statement that has been made to find out what are the underlying reasons for it, its objectives and what it is trying to achieve so that one can then see whether to apply that policy to the case in hand.
It is always a difficult question for a tribunal to decide what is a matter of fact and what is a matter of policy, and if it is made mandatory here, as it is, on the tribunal to disallow any question directed to matters of policy, is this not going unduly to restrict the discretion of the inspector? Would it not be better to have the word "may" instead of "shall"—in other words, for discretion to be left to the inspector to allow questions of policy matters in so far as they really are necessary to assist in determining the subject matter of the inquiry?
The next point I wish to raise comes under Rule 8 (4), in which it is stated that the inspector shall not permit the production of any evidence which would be contrary to the public interest. Can the Solicitor-General, who many of my hon. Friends will be delighted to see occupying his new office, give some indication of how it is envisaged that the inspector will decide whether any evidence is contrary to the public interest?
One knows of the difficulties which have arisen in the High Court in recent years—and there was the statement by the Lord Chancellor—on matters of privilege. How will this be dealt with at an inquiry at which one may be dealing not only with evidence given by or on behalf of Government Departments, but evidence given by, perhaps, individual applicants who are doing, say, contract work—perhaps secret contract work— for a Government Department? How is the inspector to determine this? Will there be any argument allowed? If so, how will it take place, particularly on the question of whether evidence will or will not be permissible?
I now come to Rule 10 (2), which is the major matter I wish to raise. Some reference was made to it in the Press today, namely, the rights of third parties, as they have been called, to be notified in certain cases of this procedure after

an inquiry. The point arises in this way. Following the well-known chalkpit case, it is now, happily, provided in these Rules that when the Minister has received the inspectors' report, if the Minister takes a different view on a finding of fact from the inspector or if, after the inquiry, he receives any new evidence—including expert opinion—or takes into consideration any new issue of fact which was not raised at the inquiry, he must not come to a decision without notifying the parties; that is, the appellant, the local planning authority and any Section 37 party—that is, any person who is interested in the land which is the subject matter of the appeal—who can then make representations in writing or, in other cases, can ask for the inquiry to be reopened.
The important question which has already been raised in another place is why, in those circumstances, should not a third person, as he is called, have the same right. A third person may be absolutely vitally interested in the outcome of the appeal. In most cases he will be an adjoining or neighbouring owner. If I have a house on my land and someone comes along next door where there is at the moment a residential user, and wants to put up a factory, clearly this is going to affect me tremendously. It will affect not only the value of the land but the amenities and the enjoyment of my property. Clearly I am likely to object at the hearing of the appeal. I am a person interested, I presume, within the meaning of this earlier Rule to which I referred. I would be entitled to go to the local planning authority and ask for a statement. I assume that I would be regarded as a person having an interest in the inquiry within Rule 5 (4).
It is recognised that I have a number of rights under these Rules. For example, I have the right to be heard subject to the consent of the inspector. That is under Rule 5 (2). I take it that in the case of an adjoining owner, who obviously would be affected, the inspector would never refuse that consent. Again to the extent permitted by the inspector, I have the right to call evidence and cross-examine witnesses. That is provided under Rule 8 (3). I also have the right to appear by counsel or solicitor or by any other person.
My standing, as it were, at the inquiry is acknowledged and recognised there. I am not a person who has the same legal right as the planning authority or as the appellant himself referred to in fine main body of the Act. But the practice has, of course, arisen under these planning inquiries always to allow third persons to appear and to be heard and to take an official part in the proceedings, and that is given official recognition in these Rules.
As has been pointed out by the Council on Tribunals in the Report which it published in Cmnd. 1787, it has represented to the Lord Chancellor that it considers that these Rules ought to allow a third person, in effect, to have the same facilities as are given under these rules to the other persons referred to there, to reopen the matter and ask for the inquiry to be re-opened. This is put succinctly in paragraph 3 of the Report:
It cannot be right for some of those who took part in the inquiry, but not others, to be consulted on these occasions.
Paragraph 4 states:
It is generally agreed that the present practice of letting in third parties is right, both in justice to themselves and in order to enable the Minister to take the best possible decision with all local opinion before him. But legal difficulties have been raised against the proposal to provide for third parties in the rules of procedure. It is said that this would be to confer legal rights on classes of persons who have no legal rights under the Planning Acts, and perhaps to extend the class of persons 'aggrieved' who can seek remedies in the High Court. It is argued that it would be wrong, under the guise of rules of procedure, to make an important change in the classes of persons who have procedural rights under the Planning Acts.
Paragraph 5 says:
In view of these legal objections the Council have not felt able to insist on rights in favour of third parties being inserted in the rules.
The Report goes on to say that the Council has nevertheless asked for those rights, as it were, in practice to be granted.
With respect to the Council, I should have thought that it was being a little timid in the way in which it presented its argument here. If the procedural rules provided that these third parties should be notified in the same way as the other parties, and given the opportunity to ask for the inquiry to be reopened, I cannot see that that would be

giving them any legal rights at all. All that would happen would be that a proper practice would be laid down in these Rules for seeing that justice was done and was manifestly seen to be done and that persons who were vitally interested in the result of the appeal were given exactly the same facilities for making their view known to the Minister.
The reason why the Minister in the first place allows an objector to come along and object is that it is recognised that the Minister cannot fairly decide the matter until he has heard from the inspector what are the representations which objectors want to make about how they would be affected. These representations are not only a matter merely of presenting evidence but include commenting on the evidence which is given by other parties, by the applicant and by the local authority. If the Minister, after the inquiry is all over and after he has received the report of the inspector, is then to take into account other new matter which was not raised at the inquiry, surely it is just as necessary that he should have the comments of those third parties on that new matter as that he should have the comments of the planning authority, of the applicant or of the Section 37 parties.
I cannot see that it is in any way introducing a new principle to say that the third parties should have the same rights as the other parties at this stage, and it is not conferring any legal rights upon them. Nor could it, as I understand the matter, give them any basis for later making an application to the High Court as persons aggrieved. This was one of the arguments used in another place against the proposition which I am advancing. It was suggested that in some way they would be able later to go to the High Court and say that they were parsons aggrieved, when, as is well known, Mr. Justice Salmon in a recent case decided that they were not and could not claim to be. The mere fact that these Rules give a right to appear at the original inquiry, to be represented and to make objections and to inspect the local authority's documents does not confer any such standing as was suggested. I am sure it will not be argued that any of those things would give them any basis on


which to allege later that they are persons aggrieved. Why should it, if these persons merely have the same rights, if "rights" be the correct word to use, under Rule 10 as any of the other persons who are dealt with already under that Rule?
Those are the matters I wished to raise. The Council on Tribunals feels very strongly on this point. It is a subject to which it has given great care, and yesterday, with the consent of the Lord Chancellor, it made public the correspondence which it has had with him about it. I ask the Solicitor-General to give some further explanation as to what the real objection is to this provision being made for third parties in the Rules. Even if there is some objection to it in the Rules, cannot the Government reflect again upon the request by the Council on Tribunals that, even if it be thought undesirable to provide for it explicitly in the Rules, these third parties should be able in practice to have the same facilities in the way that hitherto such facilities have always been given in practice to objectors at inquiries?
All the comments I have made have been directed to the Planning Appeals Rules, but they are all equally relevant to the other Rules which, of course, follow them very closely. I shall not go over the same ground.
My final word is to express some surprise that the Council on Tribunals appears only to have taken up this matter in relation to planning appeals. I should have thought that this question of the rights of third parties had just as much relevance in the Compulsory Purchase Rules. It is true that the statutory objectors, as they are called under those Rules, are a somewhat wider class than the more privileged parties under the Planning Appeals Rules, but still one has the position of the neighbouring owner who is not even having any of his own land acquired but who will be vitally affected—perhaps the most forceful objector of all—and who stall will be a third party under those Rules. I should have thought that, under these Rules, he should have had the same advantages of being able to ask for an inquiry to be reopened as third parties under the Planning Appeals Rules.

10.55 p.m.

Mr. James Allason: I welcome this further recognition of the position of non-statutory objectors, because in the past, although they would be heard if they turned up at an appeal, they had no rights at all. Their position is gradually improving, as I feel it should.
In May last year the Ministry of Housing and Local Government issued a circular, paragraphs 11 to 15 of which dealt with the notification to the public of planning applications. This implies that the public are entitled to know about these applications and are entitled to put forward objections to them. These Rules make it clear that members of the public can attend these inquiries and put forward their objections. If, however, there is no inquiry, potential objectors are in a more difficult position than ever. I hope that those who take the decision whether to grant an application or refuse it and probably invoke a public inquiry will be even more careful in the future than they have been in the past in ensuring that these non-statutory objectors get a fair crack of the whip.
There is the ordinary case where the planning authority, have notified the local residents that a development plan has been submitted, receives objections to it but nevertheless goes ahead and gives approval to the proposed scheme. There is then no chance of an inquiry. In circumstances like this, the planning authority should very carefully consider the position of the non-statutory objectors, and if possible lean over backwards to refuse the application and thus ensure that there is an appeal.
The Minister may come into the picture in two ways. First, a proposal having been rejected, there is an appeal to the Minister. Instead of ordering a statutory inquiry, he may deal with the matter by means of written representation of the parties. In such a case the non-statutory objectors are cut out and the matter is dealt with directly between the planning authority and the applicant. The non-statutory objectors naturally feel aggrieved at the matter having been settled behind their backs, especially as they were all set to go to the inquiry to register their objections.
The second way in which the Minister may come into the picture is this. In a recent case an application was made to the Minister himself. The Minister did not abide by his own rules and inform the local inhabitants about the proposal, which was to put up a ten-storey block of flats near some houses in Leverstock Green, Hemel Hempstead. He granted planning approval, and the objectors to the scheme feel that they have a legitimate grouse. They consider that there should have been a planning appeal. I welcome the Rules, but I hope that they will be taken further, to ensure that even greater privileges—but not rights—are granted to these non-statutory objectors in the future.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Antony Buck: I should like to add my congratulations to the Government on bringing forward these Statutory Instruments to incorporate the recommendations of the Franks Committee Council on Tribunals. I particularly welcome Rule 10, which has already been referred to by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I agree with the remarks made by the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot) about sub-paragraph (2) of that Rule, whereby not all parties who were concerned at the appeal are provided with notice of the Minister's determination not to agree with the recommendation of his inspector. I hope that this can be extended quite simply to ensure that all those who were at the appeal should be given equal rights.
On the whole, however, I commend Rule 10, which incorporates in a statutory form the recommendations of the Franks Committee. It will clear up much of the difficulty which has arisen in cases where the Minister decides not to accept the recommendation of his Inspector.
In view of the lateness of the hour I will confine my further remarks about the Statutory Instruments to one aspect, namely, the position of parish councils. At the moment their position under planning law generally is somewhat unsatisfactory. It would be out of order to go into the matter in detail, but, as my hon. and learned Friend will know, these councils are not informed about planning applications, and a case could be

made on another occasion for their being so informed. I am concerned however that their position should be fully protected when there is an appeal.
I ask my hon. and learned Friend to consider carefully whether they should not be named by the Minister as persons to be served with notice of an inquiry under Rule 4 (4, b). I strongly urge that he should so provide. I need not go into the merits of the question. Parish councils may know what is going on in their areas, but it is quite appropriate that they should be informed of the goings on in the village or the area around, and be given an opportunity to consider their position at an early stage, when an inquiry on appeal arises, and to seek legal advice or send their clerks on the appropriate day, or to be represented. I recommend that course.
If the Minister is not minded to take that course, I submit that he should indicate clearly that parish councils are people to be considered and allowed a hearing under the provisions of Rule 5, sub-paragraph (2), which provides that
Any other person may appear at the inquiry at the discretion of the appointed person.
If my hon. and learned Friend could say that he is minded that they should be allowed to be heard at these inquiries it would go some way towards fulfilling the entirely legitimate aspirations of the parish councils to be kept in touch with the developments taking place within their parishes.
I trust that my hon. and learned Friend will be able to reassure me on those two paints.

11.5 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Peter Rawlinson): I am grateful to hon. Members on both sides of the House for the welcome they have given to these Rules, and also for the kind words said by the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot). These are important Rules, and this is an important subject, as has been indicated by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies). They are important in the context in which we are discussing them this evening.
The general matters which have been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet, my hon. Friend


the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) and my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) will be noted by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, who has been sitting beside me.
I hope that the House will forgive me if I spend a little time over the many matters which I have to answer. The purpose of these Rules is that they should govern the procedure to be followed at inquiries into proposals for the compulsory acquisition of land by local authorities and on appeals to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government under Section 16 of the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act. As has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet, they were laid by my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor under Section 7A of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act, 1958. It is hoped, if Parliament approves these Rules that they will serve as a model for other types of statutory inquiries.
In answer to the one point raised by the hon. Member for Derby, North with regard to Section 15 cases, there are only about 200 compared with the 5,000 which arise under Section 16. Those Rules are not yet in draft, but it is intended to press ahead with them using these as a model.
These Rules have been approved by the Council of Tribunals and they are based on the recommendations of the Council itself. Hon. Members will recollect that when the House considered what came to be known as the chalkpit case, the Council indicated its intention to make a report on the whole problem of handling new factual evidence after the inquiry, and the application of the principles of the Franks Committee to which I will return later. The Council made its report to my noble Friend on 30th March of this year. These Rules are the outcome of its deliberations.
There is only one respect in which the Government have not felt able to go quite as far as the Council would have wished. That has nothing to do with the Rules and I will return to it later. There were two matters to which the Council gave particular consideration concerning these Rules on which they reported to the Lord Chancellor and both

arose, one directly and the other indirectly, from the chalkpit case.
The first, which has been touched on already this evening, concerned the question of the procedure to be followed where the Minister proposed to reject the recommendations made by the inspector holding the inquiry. What the Council concluded was that where the Minister proposed to disagree with the inspector's recommendations because of some factor not considered at the inquiry, or because he differed from the findings of fact made by the inspector holding the inquiry, he should give the parties to the appeal the opportunity of making representations in writing before making his decision.
But where, on the other hand, he proposed to depart from the inspector's recommendations, because of fresh evidence, including expert evidence, or the introduction of a fresh issue, he should reopen the inquiry, if any of the parties asked him to do so. The Government fully accept the justice of these recommendations and effect is given to them by these Rules which has been welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
The relevant Rule referring to expert opinion on a matter of fact—this was raised by the hon. Member for Derby, North—echoes paragraph 350 of the Franks Report, which, I Chink, it is unnecessary for me to cite again. The Franks Committee clearly distinguished between factual evidence, which included expert evidence, received by the Minister after the inquiry, whether from the Government officials or other sources, and the ordinary advice which the Minister gets from the officials.
The Committee believed that the first category should be disclosed and that the second should not. This, as hon. Members will know, agrees with the long-standing practice of the courts in this sphere. The Council of Tribunals accepted that distinction and the Government fully accept that any new evidence, including expert opinion on matters of fact must, and shall in future, be disclosed.
Before I turn to the one matter which appears to have raised most misgiving, a matter was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of


Thanet in relation to the amount of 42 days' notice which was given and which he thought was too extensive. The Regulations originally provided for 28 days' notice of the inquiry. This was extended to 42 days because the Council on Tribunals thought that 21 days giving notice of the authority's case should be given to the other side. That time was accordingly extended to 28 days and the whole time was extended to 42 days for that reason. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will have heard what my toon. Friend said about this. One of the matters one wishes to avoid in all these procedures is, of course, delay.

Mr. Graham Page: Before my hon. and learned Friend leaves the question of delay, will he deal with the other matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), of delay after the inquiry? One appreciates that there is an accumulation of these things in the Ministry, but is there no way of cutting down the period after the inquiry, which sometimes runs into nine or twelve months?

The Solicitor-General: This matter, which as my hon. Friend pointed out causes concern, is at the moment under very careful consideration at the Ministry, I understand, because it is the intention and hope to cut the period as much as possible.
Misgivings which have been expressed relate particularly to the rights of what are called third parties both at the inquiry and after it and when consideration of the kind to which I have been referring arises, that is to say where under the planning rules new evidence arises. This was the second matter on which the Council submitted the special report to the Lord Chancellor in June this year. After the debate in another place last week there followed correspondence between the Chairman of the Council, Lord Tenby, and the Lord Chancellor.
It often happens that when a person applies to a local planning authority for planning permission, third parties, that is neighbours or local residents, feel concern about the outcome of that development should it be granted. If the application is granted they feel that the value of their property will perhaps fall and naturally they are anxious to have

their views taken into account by the inspector holding the inquiry. In most cases any representations they may wish to make will be put by the planning authority which is the other party to the appeal, but this is not always the case because such a third party may have a particular interest he wants to be considered. Conversely, third parties often appear in support of planning permission.
I use the expression "third party", which has been used already by the hon. Member for Derby, North, advisedly because it is most important that it should be made perfectly clear that as a matter of law the neighbouring landowner is not a party to an appeal. This was shown very clearly in the chalkpit case where, as hon. Members will recollect, Major Buxton and other neighbouring landowners thought the land would be damaged if the applicants were allowed to work the chalk pit.
When the Minister allowed the appeal against the refusal, Major Buxton and other landowners applied to the High Court for an order to quash the Minister's decision—the hon. Member referred to that case—but the judge who heard the application, Mr. Justice Salmon, made clear in his judgment what was the position in law under the Act. It was that before the town and country planning legislation any landowner was free to develop his land as he liked within the common law. No adjoining landowner had any enforceable right except under common law against nuisance and trespass.
The town and country planning legislation created a restriction of development for the benefit of the public at large and imposed no new rights on any individual members of the public whether they lived close to or far from the area of the proposed development. The local planning authority was established as a guardian of the public right, and there was a right of appeal only if the local planning authority refused permission to the applicant to develop the land.
In practice, these third parties have an opportunity of putting their views at the inquiry and do put their views to the inspector at the inquiry; they are allowed by the inspector to appear.


Their position is fully reserved in Rule 5 (2) of the planning rules. Furthermore, under Rule 4 (9) third parties are entitled to inspect and to take copies of the planning authority's documents and statement. Under Rule 8 they can give evidence and cross-examine witnesses at the inspector's discretion. The provision has been deliberately left wide, with the words "party interested", so that the inspector's discretion is in no way curbed and so that in the exercise of his discretion he can permit these persons to appear and to make their case and to cross-examine. Persons often take these steps to ensure that their views are before the inspector.
Hon. Members will appreciate that it is very important at this stage that the widest representation should be made, so that the Minister ultimately receives the most extensive information about the proposed development. But these are not "persons aggrieved" in the words of Mr. Justice Salmon in the chalkpit case. They may play a part in making representations but they are not parties to the appeal. Accordingly, the only major respect in which third parties do not have the benefit of those who are full parties to the proceedings is in the procedure to be followed after the inquiry.
I said earlier that there is one respect in which the Government have not felt able to go as far as the Council on Tribunals suggested. In its Report the Council recognised the legal position of third parties as I have explained it and accepted that it was not right to press for the rights for third parties to be inserted in the Rules, but the Council recommended that an assurance should be given in Parliament that third parties would, in practice, be given the benefit of the rules as if they had, in fact, been given legal rights by the Rules.
It would not be right in the Rules themselves to put third panties in the same position as parties to the appeal, and the Council on Tribunals accepted that this would not be possible. The reason why it cannot be done is founded in the reasons given by Mr. Justice Salmon, in his judgment. He pointed out that the legislation with which we are concerned here, the parent Act, conferred no right on the third parties, and

he said that he had to have regard to the general scheme of the legislation. That being so, it is not possible to endeavour to confer rights on third parties, as it were, by the back door, as has been suggested. If the Rules before the House were to confer legal rights on third parties, such as the right to appear before the inquiry and the right to ask for the reopening of the inquiry in certain circumstances, there is no doubt that such Rules would purport to extend the Town and Country Planning Act beyond what the court had held to be its proper scope.
Some hon. Members may think that legislation should be extended so as to confer new rights on individuals. Whether it should or should not, surely it would be wrong to seek to alter the law in this way by new Rules of Procedure, and if such a wide change had to be made, it should be made deliberately by Parliament.
The Council on Tribunals suggested— and this suggestion has been pursued to a certain extent this evening—that third parties should be put in the same position as the parties to the appeal, subject only to the fact that they should not have the legal right in the recourse to the courts. The Council suggested in consequence that the Government should give the assurance of which I have spoken that third parties would be given the same opportunities as the actual parties to an appeal under the planning Rules to make further representations or to ask for the re-opening of the inquiry.
I cannot give any assurance to that effect, because there are serious practical objections. The Government do not consider 'that any great practical advantage would follow from the adoption of such a procedure. It would cause quite unacceptable delays, of which some of my hon Friends have already spoken. It would cause unacceptable delay in the reaching of decisions on appeals. The House has heard how often complaints are made about the time taken to deal with appeals. If everyone heard at an enquiry were to be given the opportunity of asking for the inquiry to be reopened where the Rules provide for the parties to make such a request, the delay would be increased.
The Council sought to avoid this difficulty by limiting this recommendation to those
who … by reason of loss of amenity or depreciation of the value of their property or on other similar grounds may fairly be regarded, in the ordinary use of language, as affected by the proposals in question.
That limitation and that test would impose the invidious and almost impossible task on my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government of deciding whether a particular objector was covered by these words. It is a duty which he ought not to be asked to undertake.
I suggest that, in practice, the third party who has a real interest—this is the person to whom I think the hon. Member for Derby, North referred—is unlikely to be prejudicially affected. In the nature of things his interest—not always, but usually—must be or usually can be identified with the interest of one or other of the parties to the appeal. If his interest is substantial, presumably that party would welcome his assistance and he is likely to receive, albeit indirectly, the same information from the Minister as the parties themselves. However, I accept that his interest would not always be completely identified with those of one of the parties to the appeal.
There is also this to be considered. If the inquiry is reopened, if the Minister has come to certain conclusions which require him to reopen it, the third party may be heard at the discretion of the person holding the inquiry.

Mr. MacDermot: Do I understand from what the hon. and learned Gentleman is saying that, if one of the parties specified in Rule 10—that is, the appellant, the planning authority or a Section 37 party—asks within 21 days for the reopening of the inquiry, it follows automatically that the inquiry will be reopened? Has the Minister any discretion to refuse the request, or must he reopen the inquiry? I can see that, if he must reopen the inquiry, the Solicitor-General's argument is stronger.

The Solicitor-General: If because of what happens after the inquiry the Minister has to ask the parties if they wish the inquiry to be reopened and one of them wants it reopened, the inquiry must be reopened. That would mean that the third party could be heard again

at the reopened inquiry. If, on the other hand, the parties are content that the Minister should act as he proposes, it cannot be right that any other person should have the opportunity of intervening, since this would mean that a person with no legal right would be put in a position of trying to induce the Minister either to grant planning permission to a developer who was content by that time with his application having been refused or to refuse planning permission to a developer whose application was in the event not opposed by the planning authority.
The position of third parties as such is clearly covered by the Rules and the powers of the person holding the inquiry are such that third parties can give their evidence and make their representations but, not being parties aggrieved, they are not in the same position as parties who are aggrieved. It is for those practical reasons that it would not be right to give the suggested assurance.
These Rules—which, I repeat, will serve as a model, if they are accepted by the House—have been entirely accepted on the recommendation of the Council on Tribunals which, as my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet said, had its birth, or conception, from that important body, the Franks Committee. They were debated in another place on 23rd July. I hope that I have covered the main points that appeared to need answer and explanation. This is, as hon. Members have recognised, an important matter and one that needs ever-close study and scrutiny, and I have thought it right to deal with the questions at, I hope, not too great length.

Mr. Buck: Before my hon. and learned Friend sits down, can he give me an assurance that he and the Parliamentary Secretary will consider carefully whether these Rules should not prescribe parish councils as parties to be given notice in accordance with Rule 4 (4)? If he will say that he and my hon. Friend will consider that most carefully, I shall be greatly obliged.

The Solicitor-General: I understand that neither district councils nor parish councils are included, but I certainly assure my hon. Friend that the position as put by him will be most carefully studied.

11.27 p.m.

Mr. James MacColl: I hope that the Solicitor-General will allow me to say how much we have appreciated his helping us tonight on what I believe to be the first occasion in his new office, and how much we have benefited from his clear and helpful explanation of this rather difficult subject. It is "kid's stuff" compared with general grant, but still, to the uninitiated, it is fairly complicated. We ourselves had been minded to pray against these Rules but, in charity, decided to wait until the Solicitor-General and the Parliamentary Secretary had been rather longer in office before we did so. The hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) decided to put down this Prayer, and it has certainly been very useful and valuable to have this discussion.
My first point is that the proceedings we are discussing are quasi-judicial but not judicial, and it is rather important to distinguish that this is essentially a matter of policy, and not merely a matter of fighting a legal action. It means that having carried out as far as possible the job of giving everybody a chance to say something and ascertaining the facts, it is not only the Minister's right but his duty to carry out the policy of which he thinks Parliament approves, and make his decision as a policy decision.
In that context, I am not sure that I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot), although most of us were greatly helped by his very lucid survey of the Rules and I would not attempt to compete with him in his detailed analysis. He raised the question of the inspector's duty to stop examination of Ministry witnesses on matters of policy. He thought that that might lead to restriction. I think that the Rule is fairly clear, that the restriction is on criticising policy, and that elucidation of the policy is not excluded.
That distinction is one of which we know in Select Committees, where we very often have to examine witnesses from Ministries on what is policy while not in any way pillorying or criticising civil servants for policy which is not their responsibility but that of the political head concerned. After all, these inquiries are meant to ascertain the facts

and are not designed to be a debating chamber. This House exists to argue about policy—

It being half-past Eleven o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 95A (Statutory Instruments, &amp;c. {Procedure)).

Question negatived.

PROBATION OFFICERS (PAY)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peel]

11.30 p.m.

Sir Barnett Janner: I rise to raise a matter which is of extreme importance to the country and which requires a much longer time to be devoted to it than is possible tonight. The House will recollect that I was here until five o'clock the other morning, endeavouring to do something about this matter, until 8.30 a.m. on another occasion and now, by fortuitous chance and your kind intervention, if I may say so, Mr. Speaker, I am able to speak on it briefly for a few minutes tonight.
I just cannot for the life of me understand what is happening to us in this country. The whole outlook on the various social services seems to have gone awry. We spend thousands of pounds on assisting people, who call themselves Nazis, to inflict themselves on an unwilling public and to endeavour to upset, in places like Trafalgar Square and elsewhere, the mental balance of children and grown-ups who happen to be there. We spend this money for police officers to go to these places not to protect individuals from the abuse that is being poured out by those who adopt and advocate the fiendish policies of Hitler and his cohorts, but to protect those individuals and to enable them to attempt to debase the mentality and morality of some of those to whom they are talking.
When it comes to a service like the probation service, which for one hundred years has been proved to be of the highest value in counteracting vices, including these, and whom we may need very much more in consequence of the action of the Government in not adopting a policy of preventing Nazis from


attacking the minds of their fellow men, the Government have shown themselves to be entirely unaware of the real position and have dealt almost death Mows to the service because of the parsimonious way in which they have dealt with Choir claims.
I can speak only telegraphically, as it were, tonight on a matter of the highest importance and I hope, therefore, that hon. Member will forgive me if I rush through the points I wish to make. I will begin by recapitulating the events which led to the present deadlock over probation officers' salaries. A Departmental Committee was appointed in 1959 after a number of difficult and unsatisfactory negotiations about salaries. The Home Secretary of the day announced his intention to appoint that Committee in February, 1959, and announced its actual appointment in the May of that year.
In 1960, it became obvious that the Committee would be a prolonged affair and negotiations were opened, and speedily completed, by which the probation service was given a 12½ per cent. increase in salaries from August, 1960, without prejudice to any ultimate findings of the Morison Committee. It is, therefore, two years since the last pay increase. The Morison Committee, which was set up by the Government, reported on 15th March, 1962, and recommended increases in the salaries of probation officers ranging from 20 per cent. at the minimum level to about 31 per cent. at the maximum of the basic grade, with still high increases for some of the higher ranks.
Before the probation service had had time to cheer, the Home Secretary referred these recommendations to the Joint Negotiating Committee asking for their recommendations on those made by the Morison Committee which they themselves had set up. The Joint Negotiating Committee in April was informed that the employers were not ready to make an offer, but on 7th May the Committee met again when the representatives of the Home Secretary stated that any salary increases must be Limited to the despicable amount of 2½ per cent. in accordance with the Government's incomes policy, but that consideration of the Morison Committee proposals might be given at the end of the year.
Despite this, the employing authorities felt that the sort of exception allowed by the "guiding light" should apply to the probation service where there was an urgent need for recruits and there had been no salary increases since August, 1960. Despite the Government's view, the employers, therefore, recommended a 10 per cent. increase in salaries, without prejudice to full consideration of the Departmental Committee recommendations. But on 17th May the Home Secretary announced his inability to accept this recommendation and his intention to make an award of 2½ per cent. This intention was repeated by the Undersecretary of State in the Adjournment debate on 16th July.
It seems to me most disturbing that no further thought appears to have been given to this by the Home Secretary, despite many statements indicating that the incomes policy was not inflexible and that exceptions must be recognised. On 23rd May this year the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, speaking to the Women Conservatives in Central Hall, Westminster, said that the Government fully recognised that there were special cases in which pay of particular services needed reviewing, particularly where a long training is required and a special sense of calling, but that they must reserve special treatment for what were genuinely special cases.
The then Chancellor on 7th July, speaking at Cramer, said:
A flat rate increase for everybody would certainly not conduce to growth. There are special cases of which you know.
We all remember the speech of the Prime Minister at Luton Hoo, on 23rd June of this year, when, according to The Times, he said:
Of course, we had to enforce the pause upon Government employees, conscious that it could not be altogether fair in doing so.
He later said that new methods must be found to improve the mechanism of assessing salary claims, and he added:
Any incomes policy must allow for special cases where what is demanded is not a normal increase but rather a reassessment or that the value of the services of a particular class may be better recognised.
This is specially importance for those cases where the value of an occupation cannot be measured by productivity. This is true of many, if not most, of the professions where what is rendered is


a service to the community without a direct product of manufacture.
Many Members, I am sure, must have hoped that in the Prime Minister's statement in reply to the Motion of censure on 26th June, he would have enlarged on this point. Instead, he offered us a proposal—the National Incomes Commission. But we should hope that in the light of the statements already made, no further assessment of the probation service salary needs to be made. This service has already had its inquiry lasting three years, which made its very firm recommendations, and we hope now that the Government in view of their admission that special cases need assessment, will be prepared to act on the assessment which has been completed with regard to the probation service.
It may be that full consideration of the Departmental Committee's Report is not possible, but the Home Secretary said in the House on 7th May, and Lord Dundee repeated in another place on 4th June, that it was agreed that substantial increases in the salaries of the probation service should be given at the appropriate time. Cannot the Home Secretary now promise that an immediate increase will be awarded? Cannot he tell us what will be considered the appropriate time for dealing with the urgent claim of the probation service, in view of the fact that probation officers have waited three years for the inquiry to be completed and two years since they received their last increase in pay? The 2½ per cent. now proposed does not show any deviation from the strictest interpretation of the incomes policy, very bad as it is, nor can it be considered to be substantial.
Officers of the Leicester probation service, a service which is very highly to be commended, as I know, having watched its work for years, write to me as follows:
When we entered probation work, we had good grounds for believing that the worth-whileness of the service to the community was likely to be better recognised. In the event, many officers find themselves, despite university training undergone at considerable personal sacrifice, earning less than unskilled labourers under their supervision. Many officers' wives go out to work to supplement the family income. This raises various personal problems, of which we have evidence, and which are not easily overcome.

An adequately staffed probation service would be a sound investment in every respect, providing a saving in money and manpower in other forms of treatment. Many offenders would never need institutional treatment if the probation service was well staffed so that each officer could give proper time and attention to his cases; but, as the Report amply reveals, officers in many areas are carrying case loads so heavy as to render supervision, let alone case work, quite out of the question. In some places, probation has become little more than a token gesture on the part of the courts making probation orders.
Fewer cases would allow the probation officer to spend time with individuals. If only two additional persons per year were prevented from relapse into crime and requiring institutional treatment, an officer would have covered his salary for the year in terms of the cost of institutional treatment. The real significance of this can be recognised by comparing the following figures. On 1st January, 1961, the probation service was responsible for the supervision of 83,600 people. On the same date, there were approximately 34,700 people in prisons, borstals, approved schools and detention centres, many of whom will ultimately come under the after-care supervision of probation officers.
Apart from the question of staff, there are other problems to which one could refer, but, unfortunately, time does not allow me to go into them. I do not want to draw invidious distinctions. I think that the professions, the police, the nurses, and so on, are greatly underpaid and we are losing considerably on that account. Moreover, as I have said, we are spending considerable sums in directions where we could easily save by preventing attacks by Nazis on our own people.
A police constable earns £910 per annum at 28 years of age. A probation officer earns £805. A police constable has a rent allowance of 42s. 6d., free uniform, 3s. boot allowance, and he is eligible for overtime payments which the probation officer is not allowed. The pay of the police constable is based on a 44-hour week. Most probation officers work flexible hours which are in excess of the average hours of a police constable.
The cost of keeping a person in bostal is about £13 a week, in a detention centre about £13 a week, in an approved school £9 14s. a week, in prison £8 10s. a week. It is estimated by the probation officers that the cost of a probationer is on average 10s. a week, which includes all administrative overheads and salaries. An adult offender on probation and in employment, unlike his counterpart in a penal institution, is not only able to make a contribution to the economy of the community but is able to maintain his dependants and himself by his own efforts.
On 1st January, 1961, the probation service had under its supervision more than double the number of prisoners in institutions. The total prison, borstal, approved school and detention centre population was 34,700. The total number under the supervision of probation officers was 83,600, which included 63,624 on probation, 10,890 under aftercare supervision, and 9,086 subject to supervision orders and money payment orders.
The Streatfeild Report recommends a substantial increase in the number of social inquiry reports in higher courts. It establishes the probation service as an important link in the sentending procedures of a court, and places a very high responsibility on the skill, judgment, and integrity of probation officers. The Criminal Justice Act, 1961, makes provision for an extension of compulsory after-care to different categories of discharged prisoners. A considerable demand is made on the skill and time of probation officers by the present categories of discharged prisoners under their compulsory supervision, and the new Act will lead to a considerable increase in the pressures under which they work.
It is ludicrous to have to point out that a television actor portraying a probation officer was at one time getting £450 per appearance. In two appearances he could earn more than the average probation officer earns in a year. The basic wage of the probation officer is £3 a week less than that of a teacher at has maximum. The teacher is also extremely unpaid, but the disparity must be clear to the Minister.
Is it sound economic policy to train probation officers at the country's ex-

pense and then fail to pay them a salary which is sufficiently high to get them to remain in the service? It costs more than £1,000 to produce a fully trained probation officer.
There are many other points that I should like to make, but if I made them there would be no time for the Minister to reply. I want the Minister to say tonight that he will not wait any longer, but will see to it now that this very important service for which he set up a special commission—and this is the tragedy of the situation and the ridiculous part of it—for the purpose of going into these matters will be paid in accordance with the recommendation of that commission. This would be in the interests not only of the probation officers, but also of the nation as a whole. The rates of pay are in a very unsatisfactory position, and I hope that the Minister will assure us that he will deal with the problem very speedily.

11.48 p.m.

Colonel Sir Harwood Harrison: Everyone knows the sincerity of the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner). I am surprised that he is not being supported by other Members of his party, who made such a fuss over this subject. Some of their fuss must have been synthetic. Nor do I see any hon. Members of the Liberal Party.
I have had rather close contact with the probation service in my county, and I am sure that nobody was more disappointed than my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary of State that the Committee's Report came at a time when there was an overriding Government policy for wages and salaries.
Has my hon. and learned Friend really considered the point that this service was under-recruited whilst this inquiry was on? According to my information, many who are now in it may leave before plans for higher wages and salaries are announced. If this comes about, what will happen in those cases where the magistrates are rather reluctant to commit the delinquents to prison and normally place them on probation? If probation officers are overworked, they will have to be committed to prison.
In addition, there are some rather weak-willed people whom probation


officers look after and keep out of crime. Are there the facilities in prisons to take over these extra cases? I stress what the hon. Gentleman said. It is considerably more expensive to keep a person in prison than to place him on probation. It may be that for a short time the Government have to adopt a policy of penny wise, pound foolish. I only hope that this will not go on for too long.
I end with those few comments, hoping that my hon. and learned Friend will reply to the points raised in connection with this very difficult problem, which is a family and personal problem to those engaged in this important service.

11.50 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke): I am glad that the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir Barnett Janner) and I have at last got to grips on this matter, after some vicissitudes which, I think are not the fault of either of us.
The hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) raised this subect in an Adjournment debate on 16th July, and in the few minutes left to me I do not want to weary the House by repeating what I then said. Of course, the Government accept the immense importance of this service. In reply to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison), I can say that although we are fearful that there may be a diminution in the number of officers at our disposal, at present there is no serious evidence of that taking place, although we are watching the position very carefully.
The hon. Member for Leicester, North-West has pressed us to give quicker consideration to this matter. Of course, the position is unfair; both the Home Secretaries that I have served under have said that it is. Everbody recognises that it is unfair. But the Morison Report came at a time when it was vital for the country's economy to have a wage pause—and in the event it was successful for our economy. It has paid off.
It has certainly meant that devoted public servants, such as probation officers, have paid a heavy price. That is recognised. But it was essential that

this should be done, and although it may sound like sermonising to them to tell them so—no doubt unwillingly— they have played a very important part in the salvation of our economy by the fact that they were in the front line of this battle for the preservation of our currency and our economy.
The hon. Member for Leicester, North-West asked whether quicker progress could be made, and that I promised on 16th July. He will recollect that I then said that we could not open formal negotiations until the New Year, but that the preliminary negotiations between the employing side—which is not, technically speaking, the Government—and the probation officers would, we hoped, be joined in the autumn. We stick to that. The Government's position has not changed since I made my statement two weeks ago. We must limit the immediate increase to 2½ per cent., but we have repeatedly acknowledged that the case for a substantial increase has been made out, and we will be ready to examine this formally early next year.
As for what the increase is likely to be, I can only say that my right hon. Friend will consider any recommendation the Joint Negotiating Committee may make to him about the formal implementation of the Morison figures which were very substantial. But he cannot, at this stage, go beyond the undertaking he has given. There is a great deal of procedure to be gone through for the benefit of the probation officers themselves, because until it is gone through they cannot, if they are so minded, go to arbitration. As the hon. Member knows, the Government have pledged themselves in these matters to accept the awards of the arbitration tribunals, in so far as they date back no earlier than 1st April of this year.
The hon. Member asked whether a decision was liable to be deferred by reference to the new National Incomes Commission. This is a very important point, and it is the only new point which I can give to the hon. Gentleman. He will remember that I said some time ago that I hoped that he would defer raising this subject, in his own interests as well as the interests of the probation officers, until the Prime Minister had made the speech which be made last Thursday.


That was the cause of all the friction which we have had. The hon. Gentleman has raised the matter now, and I am able to tell him a little more than I should have been able to tell him had he raised it before the speech of the Prime Minister.
The ordinary major revaluation such as is being considered for the probation officers is exactly the sort of matter which is envisaged for the National Incomes Commission. But—and this is the important thing—since the Commission is not yet in being, and in view of the fact that the current revaluation of the probation service has, in a sense, been performed by the Morison Committee, and because of the stage which the matter has now reached, the Government would not regard this as a matter which must necessarily be brought before the new Commission. Unless the probation officers want it, they are not obliged to go through this additional hoop, which is something that many other people in the Government service will have to do.
In other words, the Morison Report stands as an authoritative survey of the need to revalue this vitally important service, which we all recognise plays such an important part not only in the saving of crime by the prevention of recidivism and in the salvation particularly of young people, but also in saving the Exchequer a lot of money in the manner mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, by keeping people out of custodial treatment. That is important, merely from the point of view of pounds, shillings and pence, apart from the human problem which is involved.
I can tell the hon. Member, it is the only new thing that I can tell him, and the only advance that I can make on what I said to the hon. Member for Pontypool on 16tlh July, that the Government does not regard it as essential that the probation officers should go through the machinery of the National Incomes

Commission in order to get the revaluation which it is recognised that they must have.
Of course, there is a lot of negotiating machinery which they must go through. It is not enough to say that they should have a 10 per cent., a 20 per cent. or a 30 per cent. rise or whatever it may be. Within the probation service there are "many mansions". There are many grades, and, as in all these things, there are quite a lot of disputes as to what the differentials between the grades should be, and what increases or decreases there should be in the various differentials. They must go through the machinery for that purpose and also because, unless this happens the probation service as a whole is not enabled to go to arbitration.
This is a very important right. It is particularly important since the Government have accepted the view that in this phase of the pay pause they will honour any arbitration awards in so far as they do not date back earlier than 1st April of this year. Therefore, it would be quite wrong for us not to go through the normal negotiating machinery, because that would deprive the probation service of a very valuable right.
I am glad that the hon. Member has managed to get this topic again on its feet, because it is one which I was anxious should be ventilated so that I could tell the probation service, through the hon. Member and through the House, that its members will not have to go through the machinery of the new National Incomes Commission. I think that after last Thursday they feared that there would be this additional hoop placed in their path. That is not the case.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Twelve o'clock.